Decision for Lobbers Logistics Ltd (OF2063577)
Source: gov.uk (2025-04-11)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Lobbers Logistics Ltd and Nicholas David Best

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

LOBBERS LOGISTICS LTD – OF2063577

AND NICHOLAS DAVID BEST - TRANSPORT MANAGER

AND DRIVER: NICHOLAS DAVID BEST

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Background

Lobbers Logistics Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 1 vehicle and 1 trailer. The Director is Nicholas David Best, who nominated himself to act as the Transport Manager.

There is one Operating Centre at Skillets Hill Farm, Waltham Abbey EN9 3QU. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by WTL Truck & Van Centre at 13-week intervals, but it was 6 weeks on the application (see below).

The application for an operator’s licence for 2 vehicles and no trailers was lodged on 2 March 2023. The applicant then submitted a TM1 form on 17 March 2023 proposing Mr Best as Transport Manger. I do not need to revisit the reasons, but the application was then considered at Public Inquiry on 20 July 2023.

There was documentary evidence of the type of vehicle, of the RHA reporting app for driver defect reporting and of the RHA analysis for driver’s hours data. Mr Best proposed a 28-day download for the driver’s card and was to consider a similar arrangement for the Vehicle Unit. At the time Mr Best, was unclear about the facilities available through the maintenance contractor. Explicit reference made to the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, particularly in relation to brake testing (but see below). It became clear that he was intending to undertake third party traction on behalf of Tropics Cargo BV, a Belgian company but had not sought trailer authority. He was reminded that traction only operators, irrespective of whether they own, keep, or maintain trailers, are required by law to have an authorisation for trailers as part of their operator’s licence. The vehicle operator licence system was to be updated to identify a mixed safety inspection frequency. I held my decision in abeyance for a period of 28 days. I was subsequently provided with:

• Original bank statements, the average of which meets the prescribed sum.

• A copy letter dated 21 February 2023 from a Nick Thompson of J26 Trucking “allocating 1 x parking spaces” to this operator, with attached plan. The operator should be very clear that this must be a dedicated parking space for its use only. The operator is under an obligation to notify my office of that is not the case. This correspondence will be attached to the licence record.

• A copy letter dated 1 August 2023 from the General Manager of WTL Cambridge Truck Centre, an approved testing facility, confirming that mechanics are IRTEC trained (reflected in its 100% annual test pass rate), relying on three inspection pits, using Tech tool and Texa diagnostic software.

• An undated copy letter from Tropics Cargo BV of Kortemark (West Flanders, Belgium) referring to a telephone conversation about its service provider (Scania) drawing up a 12-week inspection schedule for the two relevant trailers. The intention is to upload that certificate to allow this operator access. Its trailers are said to be renewed on an 8-yearly basis and subject to annual test, but the supplier is willing to adhere to a 12-week Schedule. The inspections should be as per the current Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness and the operator will need to formally amend the inspection details on its licence record.

I treated those documents as formal representations, to be viewed as statements of intent on which I permitted grant from 22 August 2023. A variation application to allow trailer operation was subsequently granted from 11 October 2023.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry and conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing were listed for today, 13 February 2025, 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator/Transport Manager/Driver was present.

Issues

The public inquiry was called to allow the applicant a final opportunity to satisfy me that the statutory criteria were met and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:

• 26(1)(b) - breach of licence condition to notify matters going to repute and the ability of the Transport Manager to act

• 26(1)(c)(ii) – convictions of Director/Transport Manager/Driver.

• 26(1)(e) – statement regarding conditions.

• 26(1)(f) – licence undertakings (vehicles and trailers to be kept fit and serviceable, to employ an effective driver defect reporting system, and to retain full maintenance records for the require period).

• 26(1)(h) – material change:

• 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, Transport Manager not meeting Schedule 3.

• 28 – potential disqualification.

Mr Best was called separately to consider his repute as Transport Manager, under section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3. He gained his International Transport Manager Certificate of Professional Competence on 19 January 2023.

He was also called to a conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether he should be permitted to continue to rely on his vocational driving entitlement.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. The average of the financial evidence was sufficient to meet the prescribed sum.

An email of 10 May 2024 attached CCTV footage of the incident supplied by the operator and which I reviewed before the hearing.

Evidence

On 9 April 2024 Essex Police notified my office of an incident which had occurred on 17 October 2023. That involved vehicle BT18 KGG which was towing a refrigerated trailer unit. The trailer unit was found to be detached and positioned across the width of the carriageway of Honey Lane from the Junction 26 truck stop.

The goods vehicle disc was displayed in the name of Lobbers Logistics Limited (OF2063577) and the Driver was Nicholas David Best. Mr Best notified my office on 1 April 2024. Caseworkers acting on my behalf sought further information under cover of a letter dated 24 April 2024. The Director/Transport Manager responded in an email dated 10 May 2024 and attached a character statement from the manager of his maintenance contractor, Paul Sapsford.

Mr Best further explained that he had encountered difficulties in attaching the trailer to the vehicle. The dog clip was 2 millimetres from fitting into place. Nevertheless, Mr Best made the decision to move down to the bottom of the yard to see if the clip had stabilised into place. He claimed that he intended to then stop and check the dog clip, but in a split-second decision, decided not to do so. The trailer then slid off the fifth wheel, striking the offside rear mud guard, breaking the support and detached into the middle of the road.

As stated, Mr Best provided CCTV footage of the incident. In summary, the footage totalled 150 minutes and 51 seconds, with recordings from cameras at different angles showing the coupling up from nearside, front and offside coupling up to drop, and the pick-up from front, nearside and offside. The offside view of the coupling, at about 20 minutes and 3 seconds, gave the best view of the trailer becoming detached and the audible response for the driver to the incident. At times, the lighting was poor, but Driver Best was equipped with a head torch. The footage clearly records the inconvenience caused to other road users and the risk to road safety resulting from this incident. Members of the public appear to assist the Driver before the police attend the scene and are required to control the traffic in both directions on one road.

Mr Best was convicted by the Colchester Justices on 21 March 2024 of:

• driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road/ public place without due care and attention, for which he as fined £101, plus victim surcharge and costs £110. His licence was also endorsed with 8 penalty points.

• Use on a road of a motor vehicle/trailer likely to cause danger of injury due to weight/position/ distribution/security of load. There was no separate penalty imposed.

On 5 September 2024, DVSA commenced a maintenance investigation was carried out. The Vehicle Examiner, Sebastian Abbott, met with the operator at Blackwall Tunnel DVSA check site. He completed an assessment and recorded the following areas of concern:

• Inspection/Maintenance Records - one inspection sheet did not have the name of the service provider recorded or an area for the inspector to mark off to confirm a check of the tyre age. The inspection reports dated 15 December 2023, and 31 May 2024 recorded the operator as Asco Uk Ltd. The Examiner noted minor inconsistencies in the recording of brake lining percentages. He also noted two instances where the declaration of roadworthiness was signed off a number of days after the inspection. There was no obvious safety defect and recall system.

• Driver Defect Reporting – only three defect reports showed defects reported. The operator was using the RHA digital app, with evidence for both vehicle and trailer checks, but only some evidence of appropriate assessment and repair of defects.

• Wheel & Tyre Management – the vehicle was fitted with wheel nut indicators, but there was no evidence of any checks utilising a torque wrench and the operator used his mobile phone to record tyre size, make and date codes. The operator was said to be employing Central Tyres to carry out repairs and/or replacements. He only pulls boxed refrigerated trailers.

• Previous intervention – Mr Abbott noted the assurances given in order to secure grant: “From the documentation sent to me from the operator in regards to the vehicle BT18KGG this is getting regularly inspected and brake tested. On assessing the inspection records it shows that the operator is getting the vehicle regularly inspected on the dates due, but only 2 are showing that the vehicle had loaded brake tests, while the rest were conducted unladen. Mr Best has produced what appears to an equivalent to an MOT for a trailer with Chassis number WMS00000005216216, which is all in Dutch, but does appear only to valid till 31/01/2024. He has also produced 1 brake test result sheet showing a loaded brake test carried out on 19/04/2024 and 1 unladen brake test being carried out on 19/07/2024. This is the same for the trailer with chassis number WSM00000005218194 where again the certificate seems to valid till 31/01/2024. The brake tests he has supplied were for 12/04/2024 which passed a loaded braked test and 12/07/2024 which was unladed, showing that the service passed at 12% on locks and the parking passed at 6% on locks. The operator has also sent the latest brake test carried out on 12/10/2024 where the brake report shows that it failed on Parking brake at 15% with no locks on the 3rd axle. Mr Best has told me on the phone that this was repaired, and does have an invoice for these repairs, but did not have a second brake test to confirm it would pass. I have not seen any inspection reports for these trailers as they are owned by a non GB operator.” I saw similar annual test certificates from abroad, during the Public Inquiry.

He suggested that Mr Best had exercised partial control, with the above shortcomings suggesting gaps in the operator’s auditing of inspection reports and checking of wheel torques. The Examiner acknowledged the challenge of operating non-GB trailers, as does the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, to which I referred Mr Best at the first Public Inquiry:

The traction operator is responsible for:

• Carrying out a walkaround check

• Recording any defects and how they were repaired before use

Also have access to:

• The safety inspection interval

• A copy of / or access to the current safety inspection reports, including brake tests.

• A copy of / or access to current MOT certificate

• electronic braking performance management system (EBPMS) report if applicable

The operator should have in place a contract or written agreement with the trailer owner detailing the safety inspection details, frequency and defect rectification that satisfies an acceptable level of roadworthiness is maintained….

The trailer owner normally would be responsible for the routine maintenance of the trailer, including the safety inspection.

They also have the obligation to provide the required documents for the trailer user. (Also see paragraph 24, below.)

Instead, Mr Abbott received assurances that Tropics Cargo, the trailer owner, was diligent and timely in making repairs when they are reported. Mr Best responded to the shortcomings in a letter dated 4 November 2024. He sent an email to his maintenance contractor WTL Truck and Van Centre highlighting the various above issues. Mr Best confirmed he always waits while the vehicles undergo safety inspections and safety defects had not previously been recorded. Mr Best then arranged for WTL Truck and Van Centre to carry out full re torques at 12-week intervals. Independent Fleet Care Ltd had been instructed to carry out loaded brake tests by using the pull-down method (using chains attached to the chassis). Mr Best was considering refresher training.

No driver defect reports were lodged for the month of October 2024, only September, November and December were provided.

A letter dated 30 January 2025 from Mr Best to my office, referred to the instruction of Dave Cooper, of Prestige Transport Compliance and Training Ltd. The letter indicates that Mr Best has worked with Mr Cooper over the preceding few weeks to implement ‘many new policies which will improve my compliance’. I saw polices with the following titles: Staying Informed in the UK HGV Sector, Changes to the Operator Licences, Vehicle Off Road Procedure, Wheel Security Policy, Brake Performance Assessment Policy, Prohibitions and Safety Critical Defects, Vulnerable Road Users Safety Equipment, Digital Tacho Driver & Company Card, Drivers Hours & Tachograph Policy, Traffic Regulations & Speeding Policy, Load Security Policy, approved by Mr Best on 24 January 2025. He refers to Mr Cooper supplying crucial information and that he will contact Mr Best with toolbox talks every three months. Mr Best has also signed up for some eBulletins. Mr Cooper prepared a 3 page ‘health check’ for the operator on 28 January 2025.

I refer to the useful update report prepared by the Examiner, Mr Abbott, in advance of this Public Inquiry. He referred to a conversation with the operator indicating that the operator only parks at the authorised Operating Centre there over the weekends as during the week he is parked (tramping) at Thamesmead Retail Park SE28 8RD, where most of his work emanates. I was assured that the vehicle was in use and that he slept there 3 nights a week.

The maintenance contractor, WTL Truck and Van Centre, is said to use the digital records system, R2C. For the update, the Examiner viewed four inspection records:

• 27 December 2024 - Preventative Maintenance Inspection, records all axle tyres as being 110psi (different to that below and not captured in any audit).

• 15 November 2024 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection, again recorded pressures as being 120psi for the front axle, 110psi for the 2nd axle and 100 for the 3rd axle. Again, marked IM59 Hydraulic brake fluid as being satisfactory, when the operator vehicle has a full air brake system and does not have brake fluid.

• 30 September 2024 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection, recorded pressures as being 120psi for the front axle, 110psi for the 2nd axle and 100 for the 3rd axle. Marked IM59 Hydraulic brake fluid as being satisfactory, when the operator vehicle has a full air brake system and does not have brake fluid.

• 23 August 2024 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection record, assessed during the previous reports.

None of the reports evidenced have any adjusted tyre pressures recorded again.

Preventative Maintenance Inspection intervals are set at the maximum 13 weeks, but inspections are conducted at 6-week intervals, as reflected on the planner, with tachograph expiry and annual test dates. The operator produced brake test results for trailer QAHQ751 at Independent Fleet Care, dated 18 October 2024 and 24 January 2025 (13-week intervals), both showing sufficient weight applied to the trailer via a simulator, and trailer QAJA505 on 25 October 2024 and 17 January 2025, suggesting sufficient load applied, but the test carried on 25 October 2024 showed service brake at 41% and 16%, but passed on brake locks. BT18 KGG weas presented for annual test on 2 October 2024 which it passed with no advisories.

Mr Best gave assurances that the maintenance contractor would carry out a full retorque on the vehicle every 12 weeks. This was not evident from the inspection record but logged on a workshop job sheet for 15 November 2024. It does not appear to have been signed off by anyone. There was no other form of wheel torque register. The operator followed DVSA advice and had an additional metered emissions checks carried out on 27 December 2024.

There are still some issues in how the inspection reports have been filled out even after Mr Best had sent an email to the manager of WTL Truck and Van Centre to ask that he speak to his team, and in this email Mr. Best said he asked the manager “ that the technicians must record monitored tyre pressure measurements and any adjustments made” Although it has been shown that there is an improvement since my last report, the issues noted above were still found on the inspection records. I saw the latest Preventative Maintenance Inspection produced for the Public Inquiry and dated 7 February 2025. The driver detectable defects had not been recorded when in operation and had not raised the performance of the service brake with the contractor, having presumed that the brake pedal had been depressed too quickly.

The operator is using a digital driver defect app from the RHA which should show the location of where the walk round was conducted, but on some of the reports evidenced, this is not shown. No additional reports were produced, but defects found at inspections were rectified. The operator evidenced a number of invoices for repair and maintenance work on BT18KGG by WTL Truck and Van Centre. The inspection dated 15 November 2024 noted that the brake calliper slider had worn. Mr Best claimed to have identified this to the contractor but there was no driver defect report. The driver defect reports disclosed only one defect dated 19 September 2024 on trailer DBF15. The inspection dated 30 September 2024 reported that the 3rd axle brake actuator was leaking as was the air tank bung, but it is difficult to know if the driver would have detected this.

He produced evidence of a number of training/toolbox talks that cover Drivers Duties, Driver Roadworthiness, working time Directive and When Thing Go wrong. The Examiner suggested how stretched Mr Best finds himself. He has taken on the services of Prestige Transport Compliance and Training Ltd to assist. Mr Abbott refers to the health check audit, which is only a basic check. Mr Best was described as willing to make improvements and listen to advice.

Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) - breach of licence condition to notify matters going to repute and the ability of the Transport Manager to act, 26(1)(c)(ii) – convictions of Director/Transport Manager/Driver, 26(1)(e) – statement regarding conditions;, 26(1)(f) – licence undertakings (vehicles and trailers to be kept fit and serviceable, to employ an effective driver defect reporting system, and to retain full maintenance records for the require period).

I had conduct of the original Public Inquiry. I am unclear why staff employed through OTC did not submit the further variation application. Whilst I had already raised trailer inspections at the initial Public Inquiry, there was no further correspondence. 6 days later Essex Police received a report from the driver that his trailer had become detached and was blocking Honey Lane (a single carriageway road which passes junction 26 of the M25). This presented a clear road safety risk as tractor unit and trailer were positioned across the carriageway. The vehicle was driven by the Director and Transport Manager. He was convicted in March 2024 of two road transport offences, automatically placing his repute as TM at issue.

The Commercial Vehicle Unit of Essex police confirmed that “this incident caused significant disruption to the road network and was completely avoidable if Mr Best exercised due diligence when connecting the trailer to his tractor unit. It was only by chance that a serious road traffic collision was avoided on what is a busy link road subject to a national speed restriction, not to mention if Mr Best had managed to join the M25 motorway only metres away before uncoupling of the unit”. To his credit, Mr Best made full admissions. I also accept that he was aiming to travel the opposite direction on the M25 requiring him to travel over two roundabouts, but the risk to users of that road was the same. The incident was truly shocking.

I took account of the impact any intervention would have on Mr Best’s ability to earn and the investment that he had made in this fledgling business. I therefore decided to deal with matters holistically, taking account of the combined deterrent effect. On drivers, the Courts have not considered the applicability of the principle of deterrence, which was considered by the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1999] SC 86, but regulatory action undoubtedly contributes to achieving of the purpose of the legislation.

For the operation, in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t;/a Strachan Haulage, the Upper Tribunal remarked that “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the appellant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”.

Driver Conduct

The relevant legislation is set out in Sections 110-122 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The legislation draws a clear distinction between Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) licence holders and applicants and Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licence holders and applicants.

Section 112 of the 1988 Act provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant to an applicant a LGV driver’s licence or a PCV driver’s licence unless he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that he is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. It is section 121(1) which defines conduct:

• in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a LGV driver’s licence or the holder of a UK licence for the Community, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle.

The Administrative Court, on the application of Meredith and Others [2009] EWHC 2975 (Admin) 18 explained that, whilst the personal circumstances of the driver are, at the preliminary stage of consideration of fitness, irrelevant to the question whether his conduct as a driver has been such as to make him unfit, save to the extent that those circumstances concern his conduct as a driver. Personal circumstances which go to mitigate the conduct itself (such as illness, or emergency, or momentary lapse of attention, or carelessness) will be relevant, while personal circumstances which would, in the ordinary sentencing exercise by a criminal court go to mitigation of penalty (such as loss of work, or other hardship, or the dependence of others upon the licence-holder) would not.

For the simple reason of being to support himself, I was told that Mr Best wishes to continue to use his vocational licence entitlement. He assured me that he had learned from the incident and subsequent prosecution. I pointed to not only the circumstances of the incident leading to the two convictions but the other instances where he had failed to record matters, despite effective written driver defect reporting being a basic requirement of the operator’s licence. However, for the reasons explained above, I was persuaded to take deterrent action based on there being a single set of facts illustrating those deficiencies and referred to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 6. I therefore suspended him from relying on his vocational entitlement for a period of 28 days.

Transport Manager

The above findings do not equate to continuous and effective management. The convictions recorded against Mr Best placed his repute immediately at issue, under Schedule 3. Sadly, even at the date of the Public Inquiry, the operation was still not in a place to meet the basic requirements of the Operator’s Licence. Mr Best had not revisited the guidance, which he acknowledged I had referred him to. He merely concentrated on the testing of trailer brakes, but even that was not achieved to the required standard. In correspondence Mr Best suggested that the incident had occurred due to his inexperience. That appeared to be reflected in his wider management of the operation. I was left with little option but to conclude he could not be entrusted to be a Transport Manager and rely on his Certificate of Professional Competence. Given the earlier appearance and his own admissions, I was unable to conceive a suitable rehabilitation measure. In order to vary the direction preventing him from relying on that Certificate, he will need to appear before a Traffic Commissioner to satisfy them that he is then capable of meeting paragraph 14A(1)(d) of Schedule 3.

I therefore recorded a loss of repute under section 27(1)( b) and the resulting material change for the operator under section 26(1)(h) and 27(1)(a).

Operator

It is only the corporate entity which allows me to distinguish between the Transport Manager and the operator, although he is the sole Director. His fitness to hold that position is clearly at question. I was narrowly persuaded to allow a short period to allow the operator to supply tangible evidence pointing to a good outcome, namely the nomination of a qualified replacement Transport Manager who is capable of ensuring effective and continuous management of this transport operation. It was only the recent involvement of the transport consultant which brought the operator close to meeting the relevant test, but in the absence of a nomination, I could not allow any longer than 30 days. The consequences of this decision were fully explained to the operator. In that period of grace he must identify a suitable candidate, lodge the application, and persuade me to extend the exemption further, failing which the operator’s licence will be revoked.

Clearly, it is only the prospect of an alternative Transport Manager which points to an operator that might be capable of ensuring future compliance. Referral of this case was apparently delayed for a DVSA Examiner to complete a Maintenance Investigation Visit. The Vehicle Examiner, Mr Abbott, marked overall compliance as unsatisfactory, having recorded deficiencies in inspection and maintenance records, and wheel/tyre management. Inspections were found to be signed off, but showed inconsistencies with brake test readings, defects repaired but with no record and tyre issues. The operator claimed no inspection reports for trailers as they were owned by non-GB operator and despite the explicit steer at the previous hearing. The Vehicle Examiner noted that Mr Best’s assurances resembled those given at the original Public Inquiry.

I have recorded, there had been some movement towards compliance. Mr Best referred to his network of contacts, but that had not been sufficient to prevent the appalling decision making, illustrated above. He identified the cause himself in describing his inexperience to the officers and in correspondence, and despite being given advice at the first Public Inquiry. Repute now hangs by the thinnest of threads and pending the above.

As per the Upper Tribunal in 2013/022 David James Roots t/a Orange Coach Travel: TCs are not required to wait and then react after some serious event has occurred because they can, when the evidence justifies it, take action to prevent the serious event from occurring in the first place. In this case a serious event did occur, and it was not by Mr Best’s judgement that there was no injury. However, the failings are more fundamental and illustrate to operators and OTC caseworkers alike, the importance of through gatekeeping at the time of application, as identified by the appellate Tribunal in 2013/046 Shearer Transport Ltd and James Shearer.

Mr Best is now to consider whether he can continue in the industry and whether he wishes to commit to the basic requirements of an operator’s licence. He is aware that if he chooses to nominate another CPC holder, there may be other checks required of this operator. Whilst he makes that decision, this operator’s licence is suspended for 1 month from today’s date, in the interests of future safety.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

13 February 2025