Decision for Woods Scaffolding Limited (OC2023724)
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-01)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Woods Scaffolding Limited

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

WOODS SCAFFOLDING LIMITED – OC2023724

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE 12 JUNE 2025

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

DECISION:

Under provision of Section 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), this Operator’s licence is revoked with immediate effect.

Under provision of Section 28 of the Act, Woods Scaffolding Limited, and sole Director Mr Raymond Lee Woods, are each disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator’s licence for an indefinite period of time.

Woods Scaffolding Limited is a Limited Company which, until today,12th June 2025, held a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence authorising one vehicle. The licence was granted on 05 September 2019.

The Operator has a single operating centre, recorded as Meadow Farm Yard, Chester, CH1 6HE. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by A & N Commercials at 6 weekly intervals.

The Operator’s licence was granted following a Public Inquiry at which the following Undertaking was added to the licence

“All authorised vehicles will have a rolling road brake test every 3 months including the MOT. The results will be recorded and records kept for at least 2 years.”

Background

In September 2024, DVSA started an investigation as the Operator had claimed an exemption with regards to having a fitted tachograph at an MOT. The vehicle in question was not entitled to request the type of exemption. The Operator failed to respond to the DVSA’s first correspondence on the matter, dated 18 October 2024, and subsequently failed to provide records ahead of the interview with DVSA on 22 November 2024.

At the interview with the Operator, no data had been provided and it was the opinion of the Examiner that the Operator had very limited understanding of the requirements and workings of tachographs. Mr. Woods did produce his driver card which was then downloaded and showed the vehicle was only being driven occasionally. It was apparent, however, that neither the vehicle unit or driver card data was being downloaded.

Mr. Woods stated he was not aware of any requests for tachograph exemption and could only guess the service provider had thought he was applicable for exemption. The tachograph was calibrated by Colchester Fuel Injections Ltd on the 21 April 2021, therefore it’s next calibration date would have been 21 April 2023. The next calibration was not carried out until the 8 October 2024 - a total of 536 days late.

On 22 November 2024 a Traffic Examiner Visit Report (TEVR) was conducted. The outcome was “Unsatisfactory” and highlighted a number of failings:-

• The responsible person did not have the required levels of management control;

• Systems for monitoring driver licences are minimal;

• The Operator was unaware of how to download VU data and there were no systems for checking records and data downloads;

• The Operator is not familiar with the Working Time Directive and, as a result, it is not specifically monitored;

• The Operator had no disciplinary procedures in place.

In a separate matter, on 16 September 2024 the DVSA reported a “fail to stop” against vehicle HF64 VMA, being driven by an employee of the Operator. Mr Greg Breen failed to stop for an accredited ‘Power to Stop’ Officer on the A14. A ‘Section 99ZA’ request to produce records was sent to the Operator but no evidence was received as no downloads were taking place.

On 13 December 2024 Mr Woods was interviewed again, this time regarding the ‘fail to stop’ incident. He confirmed the vehicle was a company vehicle and that Mr Breen was acting on company business. He stated he could not provide the download information for the Section 99za request due to the truck being in the workshop. He states he now realised the responsibilities of operating a goods vehicle and that it was adding a lot to his workload. He was looking into utilising another company’s systems and Transport Manager to assist him.

On 04 February 2025 Driver Mr Breen was interviewed. At interview he stated he did see the stopping vehicle and initially stopped but then saw a lorry also stopping so assumed it had been for the lorry and so continued on his journey. He admitted he panicked as he had never been stopped before, and stated he saw flashing lights but not the ‘Follow Me’ sign so had assumed it was police rather than DVSA.

It is noted that the Operator has now failed to comply with two Section 99za requests for the production of records.

Pre-Hearing

A letter calling the Operator to a Public Inquiry was issued on 23 April 2024 to the given correspondence address of 3 Higginsfield Mews, Croxton Green, Cholmondeley, Malpas, SY14 8HE. This set out the location, date and time of the Public Inquiry. It also provided a number of case management directions which included (i) the need to respond to this office to confirm who will be in attendance, (ii) a requirement to provide evidence of available finances 14 days prior to the Hearing date and (iii) a list of documents to be provided to the DVSA for assessment 14 days and 21 days prior to the Hearing date. None of these case management directions have been complied with, and the DVSA confirmed that no records were produced for their consideration.

Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry took place on Thursday 12 June 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. An additional 20 minutes was allowed after the notified start date. The Operator failed to attend. DVSA were in attendance by Examiner Andrew Baxter.

I am advised that my office has a Royal Mail tracking record entitled “Proof of Delivery” which shows that the calling-in letter was delivered on 26 April 2025.

I also have confirmation from my office that the letter was also emailed, on 23 April 2025, to the given email address on the VOL system.

My office has received no communication explaining the Operator’s absence or seeking an adjournment. I firstly considered whether the Hearing should proceed. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states:-

“The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a Hearing will submit any application for an adjournment”.

I concluded that good service of the calling in letters had been provided. I am also mindful that my public inquiry room is scheduled for hearings until late-August, therefore any adjournment would not be brief. Further, the failure to comply with requests for records and failure to engage with authority is consistent with this Operator’s approach to date. I conclude that the failure to attend is, to the civil standard, intentional. I am also conscious that DVSA have made the effort to attend.

On consideration of the above, I proceeded with the Hearing and confirmed some information with Mr Baxter. In the absence of any further records or representations, I make the determination below on the basis of the best available evidence before me.

Issues

There are three areas for consideration:

a. Compliance with undertakings and conditions – I need to be satisfied that this Operator has, and is capable of, complying with the undertakings and conditions of their licence;

b. DVSA Report – I have a range of concerns regarding the failings set out with the Traffic Examiner Visit Report and the failure of the Operator to provide records subject to two separate S.99za requests;

c. Fitness – I am concerned with this Operator’s failure to engage with the DVSA and this office. This leads to the question as to whether he can be trusted to hold an Operator’s licence

Review of Evidence

Undertakings and Conditions

A comprehensive DVSA Report for Public Inquiry, which includes the TEVR, sets out, in no uncertain terms, that there has been an abject failure to comply with the undertaking to “make proper arrangements so that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed and proper records are kept”.

Due to the wide range of issues, and the absence of knowledge, the Operator was directed to provide maintenance records for assessment ahead of the Inquiry. No records were provided. As such I am entitled to make adverse inferences from the absence of such records. Accordingly, I find to the civil standard that the agreed undertaking to have quarterly rolling road brake tests and to record and keep the results for two years, has not been complied with. Nor have the general undertakings to have appropriate systems to ensure vehicles are kept fit and serviceable, to report defects promptly, and to keep records for a period of 15 months.

DVSA Report

The DVSA report highlighted a range of issues which evidenced a failure to comply with the undertaking to make proper arrangements so that the rules of drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed and proper records are kept. DVSA found that Mr Woods did not have appropriate control, the Operator failed to have appropriate systems or procedures, and the Operator had an absence of knowledge and control. Mr Woods, as the responsible person, was found not to have the required levels of management control.

Fitness

The failings identified by the DVSA would, alone, indicate a material change, being that the Operator may no longer be considered ‘not unfit’ to hold an Operator’s licence. I go further, however, and give consideration to the issue of repute – at Paragraph 18 of NT 2013/82 Arnold Transport Ltd, the Upper Tribunal highlighted the word ‘fitness’…

“…because if is critical to understanding the breadth of the requirement to be of good repute. It means, for example, that an operator who cannot be trusted to comply with the operator’s licensing regime is unlikely to be fit to hold an operator’s licence”.

In this case the Operator failed to provide records to the DVSA despite receiving S.99za requests to do so. A driver within its employment failed to stop for a DVSA Officer, the case management directions for this Hearing have not been complied with, and the Operator has failed to attend this Public Inquiry. As a result my Hearing room sat empty when it could have otherwise been put to use.

Findings

I conclude that the failure to attend the Public Inquiry is a deliberate attempt to avoid the scrutiny of the Traffic Commissioner. I make this conclusion as it is consistent with the recent approach engagement with the enforcement and regulatory bodies.

The review of the evidence as set out above, and the absence of any records or representations to challenge that evidence, satisfies me that I should record adverse findings under the following sections:

a. Section 26(1)(f) – That the Operator has failed to comply with the undertakings of its licence, namely (i) an agreed undertaking for brake performance testing and retention of those records, (ii) the general undertaking to make proper arrangements so that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept and (iii) the general undertaking that maintenance records are kept for 15 months;

b. Section 26(1)(h) – That since the licence was granted there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder, namely that it no longer satisfies the requirement to be ‘not unfit’ to hold an Operator’s licence. I make this finding due to the failure to engage with the enforcement and regulatory bodies, the failure to attend this Public Inquiry, the failure to comply with undertakings of this licence including the requirements to keep records (as evidenced by the failure to produce records for this Inquiry), and the failure to comply with the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs (as evidenced by the DVSA report).

These adverse findings satisfy me that this is an Operator that I cannot trust to comply with the Operator Licensing regime. 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”. There are clear and deliberate acts designed to give the Operator a commercial advantage and which compromise road safety.

Whilst these findings are, in themselves, of considerable significance I do give added weight to the Operator’s failure to respond to recent communications and its failure to attend this Public Inquiry. In its decision on 2006/277 Fenlon, the Upper Tribunal stated:

“It has been said on many occasions that trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioners 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.”

Whilst I recognise that this is a Restricted Licence holder, I note the comments from the Upper Tribunal in Redsky Wholesalers Ltd v UKUT [2013] UKUT 194 (AAC) indicating that asking the ‘Priority Freight’ and ‘Bryan Haulage’ questions can be helpful in determining the proportionality of approach. I therefore 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 licence – particularly the consistent failure to respond to this office and the DVSA – leads me to conclude that this is an Operator that cannot be trusted and that I do not trust.

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. In contrast I have no positive features other than a single passed annual test. The negative features of this case far outweigh that single positive.

I therefore make a direction under provisions set out in paragraph 26 that this licence be revoked with immediate effect. I note that revocation under s.26 is a discretionary matter, but I conclude that this is the appropriate action. It is already a single vehicle licence, and I have no assurances that a period of suspension would serve the purpose of enabling the Operator to make right the failings. I have already stated that I do not trust this Operator and I have set out my reasons for that. I do not consider anything other than revocation to be in the interests of the public or other, compliant, Operators.

Disqualification

Having revoked the licence for the reasons set out, I take account of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 108 of Statutory Document number 10. This operator has failed to attend a Public Inquiry and wasted valuable Hearing room time. It also failed to fully engage with the DVSA’s investigations. I am mindful that disqualification is not something that should be applied routinely, but there must be a deterrent for those that are considering ignoring communications and directions from enforcement or regulatory authorities. I therefore disqualify Woods Scaffolding Limited, and Mr. Raymond Lee Woods, indefinitely from holding or obtaining an Operator’s licence.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

12 June 2025