Decision for Vincent Bernard O’Tim  (PH2068088)
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-25)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Vincent Bernard O’Tim

WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

Public Inquiry in Bristol, 18 November 2025

VINCENT BERNARD O’TIM (PH2068088)

DECISION

PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981 (the “1981 Act”)

Adverse findings are made under Section 17(3)(e), material change, in that the operator is no longer of financial standing nor of good repute. The licence is revoked with immediate effect.

An adverse finding is made under Section 17(3)(aa). The repeated nature of the breaches of a condition and two undertakings mean that I attach significant weight. The licence is revoked with immediate effect.

Pursuant to Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985, Mr Vincent Bernard O’Tim is disqualified from applying for or holding an operator’s licence in any traffic area for 12 months from today.

BACKGROUND

Vincent Bernard O’Tim is the holder of a restricted national public service vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of one vehicle from an operating centre in Havant. This licence started in October 2023.

Mr O’Tim previously held licence PH1146758, granted in 2016. I revoked that licence at public inquiry in August 2023 due to lack of financial standing. I noted in my decision that the business was airport transfers and had been badly hit by the pandemic. This licence was granted two months later on condition that further financial evidence showing continued compliance with financial standing be supplied by March 2024. That was not complied with, and I proposed revocation of the licence.

The proposal to revoke letter elicited bank statements that met the requirement, Mr O’Tim agreed to an undertaking to provide further financial evidence by 18 October 2024 and a warning letter was issued for the failure to supply bank statements on time and until prompted.

Nothing was received by 18 October. A chase letter again led to financial evidence being sent which no longer met the mandatory requirement. I again proposed to revoke the licence. Again, Mr O’Tim found enough money to satisfy the requirement as a closing balance. A further undertaking was offered and another warning issued. Bank statements were now required for the period 2 April to 1 July 2025, by 7 July 2025. Somewhat shockingly, finances arrived on the due date unprompted. In a return to form, though, the finances did not cover the specified period so the undertaking was not met. My office corresponded with Mr O’Tim but a full set of bank statements for the specified period were never provided so the operator was called to public inquiry. The call-up letter requested the standard compliance and financial documents 14 days before the hearing.

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

The inquiry was initially listed for 29 October 2025. Nothing was heard from Mr O’Tim until he turned up on the day, and with no supporting documentation. Mr O’Tim said he wanted an adjournment so that he could instruct solicitors and showed the clerk a standard ambulance-chaser letter from a firm of transport lawyers. I was told that no vehicle was being used. I granted the short adjournment in the interests of justice although I do not think I could have been criticised had I proceeded on that day.

Nothing further was heard from Mr O’Tim. On the day before the hearing, the clerk called him and pointed out that finances were required as were compliance documents. At 16:45 on the afternoon before the hearing, finances were provided for accounts with Zempler and Tide. Mr O’Tim turned up on time and the hearing went ahead. Proceedings were recorded and I do not recount the full evidence here.

Mr O’Tim had not brought any further documentation. He told me that he had not read that part of the call-up which requested compliance records. In any case, the vehicle had been off the road for some time.

The Zempler and Tide bank accounts achieved just hundreds of pounds between them, nowhere near the £3,100 required. Mr O’Tim suggested that they be taken along with the Natwest statements sent back in July. I pointed out that the periods were not concurrent so it was not possible to assess what was available. No up-to-date Natwest statements were offered. Mr O’Tim instead submitted that he had eight taxis operating each day and always had money coming in so financial standing was not an issue. He had a property against which he could raise money if needed and a friend who would lend him money if he asked. None of this was evidenced.

I made a finding that financial standing was not met and went on to talk about disqualification. Mr O’Tim told me that he did not have a vehicle; it was being scrapped. He had three brothers who drove buses for Stagecoach. The plan was for he and they to buy a 25 – 42-seater coach between them in the new year. They would need to find a transport manager and upgrade the licence.

Absent any compliance documentation, I asked Mr O’Tim who drove the minibus when it was operational and how tachographs and drivers hours were managed. I was told that one of his brothers drove it. They would “probably” have had a tachograph card because they worked at Stagecoach. He recorded driving time in a book as the law had only recently changed to require it on a tachograph. I pointed out that the last major change to drivers hours rules was in 2006 (although commercially-operated minibuses have needed a tachograph since 1981).

Mr O’Tim told me that he intended to set up a separate bank account to keep £3,100 ringfenced at all times.

CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

Financial standing is not satisfied and I have no evidence that the requirement has been met over any sustained basis for a year. Section 17(3)(e) is made out in relation to financial standing.

Undertakings have repeatedly not been satisfied. It is clear that any promises made by Mr O’Tim need to be treated with the utmost caution. I find it is likely that, when those promises are made, it is with the best of intentions. Unfortunately the subsequent actions mean that those good intentions amount to nothing. Section 17(3)(aa) is made out. I attach significant weight given the repeated occurrences.

Mr O’Tim has repeatedly failed to comply with conditions and undertakings and has entirely failed to engage with the regulatory process in a positive way. The only positive I can find is that he turned up on time. There is nothing else. The Case Center system shows that he did not even attempt to access the public inquiry bundle. Nothing at all was received by the 14-day deadline, not even confirmation of attendance. No finances were provided until prompted the day before the hearing by my office and then only two of three accounts. No compliance documents at all were received. I categorise this as a complete disregard of the regulatory regime and a refusal to cooperate. I cannot trust Mr O’Tim to be compliant and I find that his good repute is lost.

It was abundantly clear that Mr O’Tim was entirely without the most basic of knowledge of drivers hours and tachographs. I find it unlikely that his brothers who drive buses on registered services would have tachograph cards. Certainly, Mr O’Tim as operator had no idea how the requirements were satisfied.

Disqualification does not require any additional feature but neither should it follow revocation automatically. This is his second public inquiry and the second revocation for financial standing. Mr O’Tim’s persistent failure to comply with undertakings and conditions, his persistent failure to comply with the requirement of financial standing and his absence of relevant knowledge mean that I do find that he needs a pause from the industry to reflect upon his approach to the operator licensing regime, notwithstanding that this will not allow him to engage immediately in his enlargement plans in the new year.

DECISIONS

Adverse findings are made under Section 17(3)(e), material change, in that the operator is no longer of financial standing nor of good repute. The licence is revoked with immediate effect.

An adverse finding is made under Section 17(3)(aa). The repeated nature of the breaches of a condition and two undertakings mean that I attach significant weight. The licence is revoked with immediate effect.

Pursuant to Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985, Mr Vincent Bernard O’Tim is disqualified from applying for or holding an operator’s licence in any traffic area for 12 months from today.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

18 November 2025