Decision for Herts Essex Management Limited (OF2061608) and S&L Haulage Ltd (OF2078207)
Source: gov.uk (2025-08-05)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Herts Essex Management Limited (OF2061608) and S&L Haulage Ltd (OF2078207)

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR EASTERN ENGLAND

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD VIRTUALLY ON 09 APRIL 2025 AND 21 MAY 2025

Herts Essex Management Limited (OF2061608) and S&L Haulage Ltd (OF2078207)

DECISION

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, Licence OF2061608 is revoked under section 26(1) with effect from 23:45 on 6 June 2025. If the Operator or any of its Directors apply to be involved in operator licensing again in any guise this must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority.

The application made by S&L HAULAGE LTD (no. OF2078207) is refused.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This is a conjoined hearing called under sections 13, 26 and 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) relating to alleged breaches of Licence OF2061608 by the Operator, Herts Essex Management Ltd, and an application by S&L Haulage Ltd (the Applicant) for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Licence authorising 8 vehicles (no. OF078207). The sole Director of both companies is Mr Andrew John Robinson.

The inquiry briefs provide some history with a concise background in the case summaries [HE3, SL3-4] and the call-in letters of 7 March 2025 and 5 March 2025 respectively [HE4-12, SL5-13]. I need not repeat this. In outline, the Operator was granted a Restricted Goods Vehicle Licence on 3 January 2023. It is currently authorised for 7 vehicles and 0 trailers and has 2 vehicles in possession. Its Operating Centre is 10 Burnt Mill, Elizabeth Way, Harlow CM20 2HT. The main area of business for the Operator is metal recycling and for the Applicant, it is said to be metal recycling and waste management.

While processing the application for the Applicant the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) was notified by Harlow Council that the Operating Centre was a previously licensed scrap metal site operated by Herts Essex Metal Recycling Ltd, which was now in liquidation, and that scrap metal dealing was witnessed at the site by both the Council and Police. As a result, the Council issued a site closure notice on December 2024 under Schedule 2 of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 [HE41]. There was also notice at Companies House on 25 January 2025 of a compulsory strike off, although this is understood to have been discontinued on 25 February 2025.

The call-in letter to the Operator referred to potential breaches of the following provisions of the GVLOA 1995:

section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given in applying for the licence including that the traffic commissioner would be notified of any changes or convictions which affected the licence; and,

section 26(1)(h) and that since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, namely, that the operator fulfils the requirement to be fit to hold an operator’s licence, that the operating centre authorised on licence OF2061608 (10 Burnt Mill, Harlow, CM20 2HT), may no longer be available for use as such; and that the traffic commissioner wanted to be satisfied that there are sufficient financial resources to support the total number of vehicles authorised under the licence.

The call-in letter to the Applicant set out the issues that the Traffic Commissioner wanted to be satisfied upon including, that the company:

in accordance with section 13B of the GVLOA 1995, is not unfit to hold a licence as a result of relevant activities or convictions;

has satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, in accordance with section 13C(4),

has an operating centre for heavy goods vehicles which is available and suitable for that purpose (disregarding any environmental grounds); and,

has sufficient financial resources to ensure that its vehicles can be maintained in a fit and serviceable condition in accordance with section 13D of the GVLOA 1995.

THE ADJOURNED PUBLIC INQUIRY

The public inquiry was listed for 2.00pm on 9 April 2025. The Operator and Applicant had been notified of the inquiry in call-in letters of 7 March 2025 and 5 March 2025 [HE4-12], [SL5-13]. No evidence or any correspondence was received from either the Operator or Applicant until the morning before the hearing (8 April 2025), when an email headed ‘Herts Essex Management Ltd – Public Inquiry 09/04’ was received by the OTC from Chris Webster (email ‘xxx@xxx.xx’) saying:

“Good Morning

Our apologies for the late notice but Mr Robinson is unable to attend the hearing scheduled for tomorrow.

We ask that a further date for the enquiry be set as Mr Robinson wishes to attend to state the circumstances of the application.

Mr Robinson is currently unwell but a date later in the month would be acceptable.

Regards

Chris Webster” [SL112]

Further correspondence between the OTC and the Operator/Applicant offered Mr Robinson the opportunity to attend the hearing by video link. This was accepted as follows:

“Thank you for your quick response, I have spoken to Mr Robinson and he is going to try to attend virtually (with the help of an employee). Can you please provide the details he will need.”

kind regards

Christine Webster [SL111]

The video hearing began at 14:00 hours on 9 April 2025 with Mr Robinson attending on behalf of the Operator and Applicant. No-one else attended. After I explained the procedure and structure of the hearing, it became evident that Mr Robinson did not have the relevant hearing documents in front of him and so this was sent at 14:17 hours by email from the OTC [HE43].

Having been re-sent the brief, the hearing continued. Early clarification was sought as to the association between the various companies linked to the Operator, Applicant and Mr Robinson. This included Herts Essex Recycling Ltd for which Mr Robinson was the sole director and whose licence OF1139811 was revoked on 9 October 2023 and also Herts Essex Metal Recycling Ltd that had gone into liquidation. There was also some discussion as to how the Operator was currently meeting its transport needs and Mr Robinson explained that any transportation was being carried on by his customers or clients and that he was only using his two vehicles, PX67KBU and PX67YLO, within his premises. Mr Robinson also explained that the Closure Notice issued by Harlow Council had been issued in error and that there was a hearing about this in May 2025.

Around 30 minutes into the hearing, Mr Robinson lost his video connection. He did not return online, and no further other contact was received by the OTC. A further video link was sent at 15:01 hours. An email was received from Mr Robinson at 15:09 hours stating:

“Hi sorry we have a temporary loss of power

I’m emailing from my iPhone and will come back on line as soon as power is up and running

Andy”

In the circumstances, Mr Robinson was informed by return email that the hearing was to be adjourned part-heard to 11.30 hours on 21 May 2025 and that it would revert to an in-person hearing [HE46]. The Operator and Applicant were further informed of this by email and post. The correspondence leading up to the new hearing date repeated the directions for the submission of evidence including information required to be submitted to demonstrate compliance with the relevant legislation, such as financial information. The correspondence from the OTC is provided at [HE42-63] and [SL66-93]. No correspondence or any other documentation was received from either the Operator or the Applicant after the email from Mr Robinson of 15:09 hours on 9 April 2025. The correspondence made clear on more than one occasion that a commissioner was unlikely to allow a postponement, unless the circumstances were exceptional, and that if the Operator/Applicant did not attend, the case would be heard in their absence: see, for instance, the letter of 9 May 2025 [HE50] and the email of 20 May 2025 [HE59]. A note from Royal Mail confirmed that the re-sent hearing bundle had been delivered [HE61-62].

Neither the Operator nor the Applicant attended the hearing listed for 11:30 hours on 21 May 2025. By 12:00 noon, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Operator and Applicant.

THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

For the existing licence the burden is on me to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence as against the civil standard of proof, (i.e. on the balance of probabilities or, more likely than not) before making an adverse finding: see e.g. paragraph 61, Muck It Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2005] EWCA Civ 1124, [2005] Env LR 23, per Rix LJ.

In relation to the application for a licence, the applicant bears the burden of proof (on the balance of probabilities) throughout the application process and to satisfy me that it has met the legal requirements set out in section 13 of the GVLOA 1995

The evidence before me was within the public inquiry briefs. This included the Closure Notice and although I was told there would be a hearing in May about this, I have not been provided with any update. The Operator and Applicant had been asked in March to comply with detailed directions (e.g. [HE8-9]) and was asked again in May [HE54-55]. Those directions required evidence as to the availability of finance and detailed information on vehicle maintenance, operational management (such as forward planning) and driver management. No evidence has been received at any time relating to the above. I have no idea what the current financial situation is of the Operator or the Applicant. I do not have any understanding about vehicle maintenance, nor driver management, nor of any operational systems in place.

DETERMINATION

The Operator has now had the opportunity at two hearings to provide the evidence referred to and requested in the call-in letter and the supporting directions, or otherwise explain the circumstances as to why that evidence has not been provided. It has failed to do soThe inability to provide any evidence in this regard when asked to do so on more than one occasion suggests that the information may not exist. This gives rise to real concern about road safety and fair competition. And, while the breach of undertaking referred specifically in the call-in letter referred to a change in circumstances, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that, contrary to section 26(1)(f) of the GVLOA 1995, the Operator has not honoured a number of undertakings given when it applied for the licence, including that it has failed to provide information on drivers hours and defect reporting and maintenance are made available on request) as well as undertaking to inform the Traffic Commissioner of any changes to the licence. The failure to notify of changes to the licence includes an update on the liquidation of the associated companies, the correct up-to-date position relating to Closure Notice for the site and the current financial status of the operator.

I am also satisfied that, contrary to section 26(1)(h) of the GVLOA 1995, there has been a material change in the circumstances of the Operator namely, that the Operator is no longer fit to hold an operator’s licence, authorising seven vehicles. The reason for this is due to the failure to provide any information relating to vehicle maintenance, or operational and driver management. I have nothing to suggest Mr Robinson is a responsible person and can effectively and safely manage the vehicles and drivers that may operate under the licence. The only evidence before me is the non-compliance with the undertakings and the directions sent and received of more than one occasion. Similarly, I have not been provided with any evidence that the operator has sufficient financial resources to support the total number of vehicles authorised under the licence.

RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS (BALANCING EXERCISE)

Having made the above findings, I take into account the relevant positive and negative factors in deciding what regulatory action to take. I remind myself that paragraph 4 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 provides that:

“The legislation exists to ensure the promotion of road safety and fair competition and traffic commissioners will have regard to the relevant decisions of the higher courts and the principle of proportionality in deciding what intervention is commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case.”

On the positive side, I am informed by the Operator has not been using vehicles currently held under licence on the public highway and that its clients and customers have been bringing waste to and from the site.

On the negative side there has been a continuing failure to provide any evidence as required by the undertakings and directions made by the Traffic Commissioner. Thus, there is no evidence of compliance with the regulatory regime, nor of financial standing. There is, however, a failure to comply with the Commissioner’s formal directions.

DECISIONS

Taking into account the positive and negative factors and also the effect of regulatory action proposed on the business and with reference to the suggested starting points of regulatory action found in Annex 4, Statutory Document 10, I find that this case may be regarded as serious to severe.

I ask myself the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight & Paul Williams: do I trust this operator to be compliant in the future? After repeating all of my findings I answer that question: no. I have not been provided with any evidence such that I can trust the operator to be compliant in the future. I have then asked myself the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage Ltd No. 2; is the conduct of this operator such that they ought to be put out of business? And I reach the conclusion that on the evidence that has been provided to me, it appears to me that the Operator can operate its business without an operator’s licence, at least in the short term, by continuing to rely upon its clients and customers for the movement and transportation of heavy goods.

It is therefore proportionate that the Operator’s Licence OF2061608 held by Herts Essex Management Ltd is revoked under section 26(1)(f) and (h) of the GVLOA 1995 because the Operator cannot demonstrate that it is not unfit to hold a restricted operator’s licence having been provided no evidence of compliance with the regulatory regime, nor any evidence of financial resources. The order for revocation will take effect at 23:45 hours on 6 June 2025.

I now turn to the question of disqualification under section 28 of the GVLOA 1995. I have considered the comment of the Transport Tribunal in Michael Fenlon [2006] no. 2006/277 that:

8 . … trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioner’s 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. …

Disqualification is a potentially significant infringement of rights. And, although the Operator has materially failed to provide any information to enable me to assess its fitness or financial resources. In all the circumstances of this case, I do not consider that disqualification is proportionate for this Operator on the evidence and findings before me. That said, if the Operator, or any of its Directors apply to be involved in operator licensing again in any guise, this must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority. And it will need to address the adverse findings in this decision.

In relation to the application for a Licence by the Applicant, I have not been provided with any up-to-date information to be able to assess whether it meets the requirements of sections 13C and 13D of the GVLOA 1995 in relation to vehicle maintenance, operational management and driver management. Moreover, the failure to comply with any directions for the public inquiry means that I am not in a position to decide whether any effective oversight and management will be in place. Further, the financial statements that were submitted with the original application are now some seven months old and the Applicant has twice had the opportunity to provide relevant information. For these reasons, the application for a restricted licence no. OF2078207 is refused.

29 May 2025 Dr Paul Stookes Deputy Traffic Commissioner