Decision for KJB Scaffolding Limited (OK2064073)
Source: gov.uk (2025-08-14)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the South Eastern and Metropolitan area for KJB Scaffolding Limited

SOUTH EASTERN AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD AT IVY HOUSE, IVY TERRACE, EASTBOURNE ON 22 JULY 2025

OK2064073 KJB SCAFFOLDING LIMITED

Decision

Breach of Section 26(1) (a) (b) (e) and (f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 found Licence revoked with effect from 00.15 hours on 01 September 2025 pursuant to Section 26 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

Kane Towers is disqualified, as a sole trader, partner in a business or director of a company from holding or obtaining an operator licence for a period of one year from the 01 September 2025 pursuant to Section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

Background

The operator KJB Scaffolding Limited is the holder of a restricted licence authorising two vehicles granted on the 12 April 2023.The sole director of the company is Kane Towers.

On the 11 March 2025 Vehicle Examiner Marshall conducted a maintenance investigation in relation to the operator. His report recorded unsatisfactory findings in respect of the inspection/maintenance records, driver defect reporting, inspection and maintenance facilities, vehicle emissions, wheel and tyre management, load security and responsible person assessment. A marking of “report to OTC” was shown against the operating centre assessment.

On the 25 March 2025, the operator responded to the findings of the maintenance investigation and applied to authorise a new operating centre which resulted in an interim direction approving that site for a period of six months.

Having considered all the factors including what appeared to be an inadequate response from the operator a decision was taken to call the case to public inquiry and a call up letter which included case management directions was issued on the 10 June 2025.

On the 29 June 2025 Mr Towers sent an e mail with what appeared to be links to documents attached. A member of staff explained that these links could not be opened and advised Mr Towers that compliance related documents should, in any event be sent to Vehicle Examiner Marshall. An exchange of emails also took place in relation to what appeared a shortfall in the level of financial standing available. On the 21 July 2025, a note from Vehicle Examiner Marshall was received which stated that Mr Towers had failed to provide him with any documentation relating to vehicle maintenance including copies of preventative maintenance inspection records. He also said that he had a telephone conversation with Mr Towers on the 23 June when he had told him that he should provide the documentation as directed by the Traffic Commissioner in the call up letter. He said that there were no documents or folders attached to emails which he was unable to open.

The Public Inquiry

Mr Towers attended the public inquiry and was unrepresented. When he was being checked in by the hearing clerk, he said that he had several folders with him containing compliance related documentation. Whilst he had been told categorically that all documentation should be sent in advance of hearing, I decided to look at these folders bearing in mind the content of the earlier message from Vehicle Examiner Marshall.

The folders contained copies of documents including emissions, wheel/tyre management and vehicle off road policies although there was no evidence of those policies being used. In addition, there was one PMI sheet for vehicle SF15 CJE dated 14 March 2025 as well as a “Pre MOT inspection dated 14 July 2025. The folder for vehicle MX66CON contained a PMI sheet from 2024 and a copy of an MOT certificate issued on the 6 May 2025. This was also recorded by Mr Marshall’s test report for that vehicle which showed the vehicle had failed a test on the 17 March 2025, had a test abandoned on the 7 April, failed a test again on the 01 May before passing on the 06 May. The reasons for failure were set out in the report. The various documents from the folders were extracted and sent to Mr Marshall for consideration.

As Mr Towers was unrepresented, I outlined the process of the inquiry and asked him to provide some details of his business. He confirmed that the business activity was scaffolding and said that there were five members of staff, two full time and three part time. There were two drivers of the HGVs which included him. He then disclosed that he was currently disqualified from driving for six months as a result of an accumulation of penalty points. The disqualification is due to end in September 2025, and he said was a result of failing to provide information as to driver offences. I asked him if he informed the Office of the Traffic Commissioner of the convictions and he said he did not know he had to.

I confirmed that the licence had been granted on the 12 April 2023 and that the operating centre designated on grant remained on the licence until the 28 March 2025 when an interim direction for a new operating centre was granted. He said that the move from the previous operating centre had started in October or November 2023 and was completed in February 2024. I asked why he had moved and not applied for the new operating to be approved, and he said he was not sure if the new site was going to work out. Later in the hearing he said that as a result of the cost and administrative efforts required to apply for a new operating centre, he wanted to make sure he was going to stay at the new site and not have to apply for another one. I referred to vehicle MX66CDN and noted that Mr Marshall had been told that vehicle had been off the road since the 29 November 2024 when he undertook his visit in March 2025. Mr Towers said that this vehicle was back on the road having passed an MOT test on the 06 May 2025. He confirmed that the vehicle had failed twice, and one test had been abandoned prior to that pass. There were no PMI sheets for that vehicle in the folders Mr Towers produced at the hearing. Mr Marshall had examined four PMI sheets when he visited which showed driver detectable faults being found at inspection and no brake testing taking place. There was also a gap of 24 weeks between the last two inspections.

The second vehicle authorised on the licence is SF15CJE and Mr Towers said he had purchased that vehicle in June 2024 but had not listed the vehicle on the licence until the 07 April 2025. He said that he had not known how this could be done on the DVSA system. Mr Marshall had seen one PMI for this vehicle which had taken place on the 01 July 2024 with no brake test recorded. In the folder produced at the inquiry there was a PMI sheet dated 14 March 2025, and the “Pre MOT PMI” dated 20 June 2025. Mr Marshall noted that no brake test had been undertaken in the same week as the PMI in March and that there were multiple defect listed in the PRE MOT document which would have been easily identified during a driver walk round check with no corresponding DDR’s supplied. This inspection was also conducted two weeks later than required by the PMI schedule.

I asked Mr Towers why no daily walk round records had been produced and he said that they were in another folder which he did not bring with him. I asked him if the driver detectable faults would be shown on the walk round records and he said probably not. I pointed out that one of the faults was the absence of an offside wide angle mirror and Mr Towers said he didn’t think it was obligatory to have this fitted. Mr Towers emphasised the large amount of money spent on the vehicles in maintenance costs, and I asked why he had both vehicles on the road when there was only one driver bearing in mind his disqualification. He said that it was useful to have a second vehicle if one was being inspected or repaired and there were not any circumstances when both vehicles were in use at the same time. He admitted that rolling road brake testing had not been taking place when he had been using a previous “independent” mechanic, but inspections were now being undertaken by L & D Commercials Limited and brake testing by Dean Transport Limited. Mr Towers was arranging for scaffold materials to be loaded on the vehicles for brake testing. Mr Marshall pointed out that the vehicles seemed to have insufficient load on some of the axles when they had been tested.

I referred Mr Towers to the case management directions issued with the call-up letters and asked him why he had not produced the evidence requested in relation to managing drivers including downloads of drivers’ hours and infringement reports. He said that he had not realised that he had to produce these and, in any event, he did not print off the download reports. He did not believe that infringements were committed. I asked him if he knew what a missing mileage report was, and he was not sure. However, when I explained he said that there should be no missing mileage as tachograph cards were always used.

In closing Mr Towers said he was guilty of record keeping issues, he had tried to get a transport manager, but none would help him because of the inquiry, he would do anything that was required to keep the licence. I explained my options in terms of regulatory action including disqualification and he said that revocation would end the business, suspension would “crucify” the business and there would be major financial implication if only one vehicle could operate.

Findings and Decision

There have been breaches of Sections 26 (1) (a) (b) (e) and (f) of the Goods Vehicles Act, 1995 in this case. An unauthorised operating centre was used for over a year, a change of maintenance provider had occurred without notification and vehicle SF15CJE was used for a substantial period without being authorised on the licence. PMI periods have been exceeded and the faults found when vehicles were inspected show that driver walk round checks were not being properly carried out. The fact that one vehicle had to be MOT tested four times before a pass was recorded and the other had a long list of faults repaired before MOT add to the picture of a maintenance regime well below the standard that is expected.

As well as these examples of non-compliance I need to add in the balance the fact that Mr Towers told me that at the inquiry that he had been disqualified for six months and in addition had not notified the Traffic Commissioner of the conviction. The failure by the operator to submit the maintenance related documentation in advance of the inquiry adds to the negative factors as does the complete failure to send in material relevant to driver management. The case of V Larkin Ltd t/a Olympic Scaffolding. On Point Construction Limited 2019/011 is authority to find that a failure to produce document either shows a wilful or careless disregard for compliance or the operator has something to hide.

On the positive side I accept that Mr Towers did put together his folders after the visit of Mr Marshall, does appear to have engaged the services of more suitable maintenance provider and commenced rolling road brake testing as a regular occurrence. I also accept that money has been spent on repairs and maintenance of the authorised vehicles.

In accordance with the guidance given by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in Statutory Document 10 I need to consider the level of seriousness in this case and I have concluded that it is in the serious to severe category. In considering whether the licence should be revoked as a consequence I have to ask myself the question set out in the case of Priority Freight Limited & Paul Williams i.e. how likely is it that this operator will operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? In other words, can the operator be trusted going forward? After careful consideration I have decided that this is not the case. The initial non-compliance demonstrates a serious failure to meet the undertakings agreed when the licence was granted and the improvements made in advance of the public inquiry are very limited. I have not been able to measure compliance in relation to driver management due to the complete absence of documentation. The case of Arnold Transport Ltd 2013/082 is authority to support the finding that the longer the operator waits to take action to remedy problems the less credit can be given for it. My view of the action taken by the operator in this case is that it merits the description “too little too late”. Mr Towers said that his failings were confined to “record keeping” but I do not agree. The faults found at inspections, the failures and work required to pass MOT tests, and the gaps between inspections in some instances point to road safety failings and risks.

I believe it is telling that Mr Towers defended his decision not to apply for approval for a new operating centre earlier on the ground that it would have been a waste if he had not found the new site suited his needs. He took a similar approach when asked about the option of obtaining an overdraft or loan. I conclude that he will be more inclined to do what he thinks is best for him and his business which may not, on some occasions, be what the regulations require.

I have concluded that this operator deserves to be put out of business and I order revocation of the licence, and the interim direction in relation to the variation of licence, under Section 26 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 with effect from 00.01 hours on the 01 September 2025 allowing time for the closure of the business.

In accordance with guidance, I reminded Mr Towers that he had the opportunity to address me on the question of disqualification, but he did not do so at any length. This is a case where I consider an order is appropriate because Mr Towers needs to be kept away from operator licensing for a period. However, I am limiting the order to one year from the 01 September 2025, taking into account this is the first inquiry the operator has attended. The disqualification will apply to Mr Towers as a sole trader, partner in a business or as a director.

If Mr Towers applies for a licence in the future, either as a sole trader, partner or director he will need to make sure he has a much higher level of knowledge of what is required and systems in place to ensure that he can trusted to be compliant. John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

29 July 2025