Decision for UK Commercial Transport Services Ltd t/a Hit the Road (PC2069397)
Source: gov.uk (2025-06-16)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West for UK Commercial Transport Services Ltd t/a Hit the Road

UK COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD t/a HIT THE ROAD PC2069397

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 03 JUNE 2025

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

DECISION:

Under provision of Sections 17(1)(a), 17(3)(b), and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”), this Operator’s licence is revoked with immediate effect.

‘UK Commercial Transport Services Ltd t/a Hit the Road” (“UKCTS”) is a Limited company which holds a Standard International PSV Operator’s licence authorising three vehicles. The licence was granted on 18 January 2024, and at that time the sole Director was given as Mr Thomas Andrew Martin Matthias. The Transport Manager was, and remains, Mr Mohammad Zia-Ul-Haque.

The licence holder has a single operating centre, recorded as Unit 1, Hill Farm, Whitchurch Road, Broomhall, Nantwich, CW5 8BZ. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Commercial & Plant, Sandbach, and internally by Ashley Wright, at 6 weekly intervals.

Background

On 18 September 2024 the Office of the Traffic Commissioner was notified that Mr Christopher James Jackson had been appointed as a Director. Companies House records show that Mr Jackson was actually appointed as Director some five months earlier, on 02 April 2024. The company had been incorporated on 23 October 2023.

Of significance, Mr Jackson was previously sole Director of Yellow Travel Wrexham Ltd t/a Time2Travel (“Yellow Travel”). That company held Standard National Operator’s licence PG2044929, authorising the use of one vehicle. Licence PG2044929 was revoked with effect from 05 July 2023 following a Public Inquiry prompted by an unsatisfactory DVSA Maintenance Investigation. A direction was given by the presiding Traffic Commissioner that the Operator was to be disqualified for a period of two years, ending 05 July 2025.

Consequently, Mr Jackson’s history is such that he may not have been granted an Operator’s licence, certainly not without having to appear before a Traffic Commissioner. Further, given the timeframes between the revocation of Yellow Travel, and the incorporation of UKCTS, I am concerned that this new enterprise was a front for Mr Jackson.

On 21 March 2025 notice was issued that I was proposing to revoke the Operator licence of UKCTS for (i) an alleged breach of the condition to notify this office of the change in Directorship within 28 days and (ii) due to there being a material change regarding the licence. That notice set out my concerns that the timeframes were such that, at one end of the scale this licence was a front for Mr Jackson, and at the other there was a failure to allow this office to ensure proper scrutiny of Mr Jackson’s involvement, and appointment as a Director, within an appropriate timeframe. A request for a Public Inquiry was received that same day from Mr Jackson.

Pre-Hearing

A calling-in letter was sent to the Operator on 03 April 2025. This set out a small number of case management directions, including the requirement to provide this office with maintenance records for assessment ahead of the Hearing. That direction was not complied with.

On 21 May 2025 Beverley Bell Consulting Ltd, representing UKCTS, submitted a request for the licence to be surrendered. I refused this request stating:

“The Operator was issued with a PTR, and it was they that requested the PI.

Time and resource has been made to facilitate the PI they requested, and it is too late to plan another hearing and make good use of the hearing room. I intend to proceed with the PI and refuse the application to surrender as regulatory proceedings have already commenced.”

Beverley Bell Consulting Ltd further advised that, should the surrender be refused, and in an effort to avoid wasting the Traffic Commissioner’s time, the Operator did not seek to attend the Public Inquiry and invited me to revoke this Operator’s licence. Further representations would be made only if I was minded to disqualify either the Operator or Mr Jackson from holding or obtaining a licence in the future.

Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry took place on Wednesday 03 June 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. As advised in advance, the Operator did not attend. Given the communication from its representative, and my refusal of the request to surrender the licence, I took the decision to proceed to make a decision based on the best available evidence before me.

Summary of Evidence

The key concerns were clearly set out in the notice proposing to revoke the licence, including:

• that the holder of the licence contravened a condition attached to the licence, namely the requirement to inform this office of a change in Directorship;

• there has been, since the licence was issued, a material change in the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the issue of the licence, namely, a change in Directorship;

• the licence holder may no longer satisfy the requirement to be of good repute.

In evidence I have before me materials relevant to the revocation of licence PG2044929, held by Yellow Travel. I also have the application for UKCTS, and Companies House records showing the date of incorporation and the dates Directors were appointed and removed.

Concerns with fronting, and the failure to notify this office of a change to the Director were put to the Operator and whilst a Public Inquiry was requested, no supporting documentation to refute the claims was subsequently produced. I do note that the representative’s letter of 21 May 2025 states that the company’s Director, Mr Jackson, “does not accept any allegations which are capable of having an adverse impact on his or the company’s repute” but that offered no materials or statements as evidence.

Additionally, the Operator has decided, late in the day, not to challenge the allegations at Public Inquiry. I further note that the Case Management Directions to provide maintenance records were not complied with. Whilst I do appreciate the Operator made attempts to surrender the licence and provide notice that they would not be attending the Hearing, the surrender and notice were given too late for an alternative Hearing to be scheduled and the Hearing Room lies empty when it could otherwise have been put to use; either to deal with another case of non-compliance, or allowing an outstanding application to be finalised.

Findings

The timing of the incorporation with UKCTS, so soon after the revocation of Yellow Travel is, I find, to the civil standard, not a coincidence. This is supported by Mr Jackson’s subsequent appointment as Director and failure to inform this office was. I conclude that was an attempt to hide his initial involvement and make the transition seem more plausible. I am entitled to make adverse inferences from the Operator’s choice to not attend and challenge the allegations, and not to provide any statements or evidence in advance of the Hearing.

In addition, the licence holding entity’s failure to notify this office of Mr Jackson’s appointment within the stipulated timeframe was a breach of conditions. As above, I conclude that this was purposeful.

That change represents a material change in circumstances of the holder of the licence which were relevant to the grant of the licence. Not only has there been a change to the Ownership, but Mr Jackson’s links to Yellow Travel was such that the requirement to be of good repute was not guaranteed.

That requirement to be of good repute is now further tested through the failure to comply with the conditions of the licence; the failure to comply with Case Management Directions for this Hearing; and the failure to attend a Hearing that they requested.

Decision

I make adverse findings as follows:

a. Section 17(3)(b) - the holder of the licence has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely failure to inform this office of a change in Directorship. This is because Mr Jackson was appointed as Director on 02 April 2024, but did not notify this office until 18 September 2024;

b. Section 17(3)(e) - that there has been, since the licence was issued or varied, a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence holder, that were relevant to the issue or variation of the licence, namely, a change in Directorship. The reasoning is as above.

c. Section 17(1) – the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirements of Section 14ZA(2)(b) of the Act, namely that the Operator is of good repute. I make this finding as I have determined that the failure to notify Mr Jackson’s appointment was a deliberate attempt to hide his link to the business which, I have also concluded, was a front for Mr Jackson. Further, the licence holder requested a Public Inquiry and subsequently failed to comply with the directions ahead of it and failed to attend.

On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “severe”. The failure to notify the appointment of Mr Jackson as a Director was a clear and deliberate act designed to give the Operator a commercial advantage, namely the continued use of an Operator’s licence after the revocation of licence PG2044929.

I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this Operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the negative. The evidence before me in respect of this Operator, and Mr Jackson as its sole Director, leads me to conclude that it is currently highly unlikely that this is an Operator who I can trust to comply.

I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the Operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. The negative features of this case are well laid out above and I have little or no positive features against which to balance other than give credit for advance notice of non-attendance.

Having concluded that the licence is subject to revocation I consider whether disqualification is appropriate. In respect of an Operator or Director the issue of disqualification is a discretionary matter. I am conscious of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance at paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 that such a direction is a potentially significant infringement of rights and should not be routinely ordered.

Mr Jackson is already linked to a Disqualification Order against a previous company, and I note that this ends in July 2025. I give credit for the Operator notifying me in advance that it would not be in attendance and inviting me to revoke the licence. The further revocation of this licence is such that should either UKCTS, or Mr Jackson, seek to apply for an Operator’s licence in the future they should expect to be required to evidence rehabilitation measures in support of any application. I therefore stop short of disqualification as UKCTS and Mr Jackson have, at the last minute, sought to engage with the regulator and any future application(s) will likely be scrutinised by a Traffic Commissioner.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

04 June 2025