Decision for Stuart John Kingston (transport manager)
Source: gov.uk (2025-02-18)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the South East and Metropolitan area for Stuart John Kingston (also known as Jones)

IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA.

STUART JOHN KINGSTON (ALSO KNOWN AS JONES) – GOOD REPUTE

HEARING 8 JANUARY 2025

GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995

GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) REGULATIONS 1995

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION

DECISION

Before being accepted in a role requiring good repute/fitness on any GB Operator Licence, Mr Stuart Kingston he will need to attend a reconvened Hearing of the extant issues before a Traffic Commissioner or Deputy Traffic Commissioner.

Reasons

Mr Kingston failed to attend the hearing on 8 January 2025. Mr Kingston first came to my attention at a Hearing for new application, Midland Fox Limited PF2068215 on 25th March 2024. My decision is a matter of record set out in a letter dated 28th March 2024 and which is within the Hearing Bundle for Mr Robert McBride (PC2075750). The Midland Fox Limited application was refused because of the Applicant failed to satisfy me that it was of good repute and because during the Hearing Mr Kingston’s good repute came in to question. In relation to the latter the decision states:

Stuart Kingston

I referred Mr Hawes and Mr Kingston to the external transport manager and compliance manager contract produced in terms of Mr Kingston as transport manager for this application. I refer to the Senior Traffic Commissioner statutory document No. 3 Transport Manager, which clearly sets out the appellate court case law that there must be no blurring of the lines between consultancy and the TM role. The contract produced to me is perhaps an excellent example of what a contract should not look like.

Mr Kingston has written several letters to Traffic Commissioners and OTC Leeds setting out his career history and experience. However, he has failed to notify that he was made bankrupt in 2003, discharged 2008. When I referred Mr Kingston to a possible disqualification under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, Mr Kingston referred me to a 10 year disqualification in approximately 2006 regarding money owing to HMRC. If this is the case it’s not been disclosed previously. However, I was referring to a more recent disqualification showing on Companies House whereby he was disqualified for 12 years after nefarious practices as a shadow director for Logan’s Tours Ltd. That disqualification does not come to an end until September 2024. Mr Kingston accepts that he may have misremembered, and he did think that the disqualification ended after 10 years but he is going to go away and check all his paperwork.

Mr Kingston assures me that he is committed to resolving any material nondisclosure and making sure that (1) his full history is clearly set out for the Traffic Commissioners; and (2) reviewing Coach Assist and Rail Assist to ensure that there can be no further blurring of the lines and a proper separation in demarcation of any external transport manager work. Mr Kingston and I have agreed that he will send in as much paperwork as he retains on the disqualification. We agreed that if necessary for there to be a Public Inquiry to consider his good repute and that it will be reserved to me, even if it means him coming to Eastbourne. I think this would be helpful for everybody because of the evidence I have already heard and my assessment of Mr Kingston to date.

I grant Mr Kingston 28 days to send via e mail a copy of the information he finds before deciding if a PI is needed. It must be sent to my Eastbourne Hearing Centre PA [Redacted]. In the meantime, OTC will also write to the Insolvency Service to see if further details of the disqualification and reasons can be made available to Mr Kingston and OTC”.

I note that chronology here because Mr Kingston suggests in his email dated 5th November 2024 (page 414 of the Bundle) that he has always been transparent with OTC. The first TM1 form (out of date version) he submitted for Midland Fox Limited did not include a previously revoked Licence. The subsequent (current) form did mention his revoked Licence from 2003 but Mr Kingston failed to disclose that he was also disqualified as operator and TM for 5 years. Further Mr Kingston also failed to notify that (i) he had previously been bankrupt in 2003 and discharged in 2008 and (ii) he had adverse history re administration/liquidation. This clarification was required as it links to questions 12 and 13 of the Licence application form. Being added as a TM during the application process does not absolve the individual of transparency. In March 2024 Mr Kingston told me that he thought the disqualification in 2012 was for 10 years but that he may have “misremembered”.

After the Hearing I gave Mr Kingston the opportunity to get the requisite details in relation to his previous disqualification etc and to submit representations to my office. Mr Kingston struggled to obtain relevant details of the disqualification undertaking and therefore my office obtained it through official channels. The document was sent to Mr Kingston for comment. He replied on 5th June 2024. I accept that there was a delay in responding or giving a decision due to administrative changes within my office and other work priorities.

In the meantime, Mr Kingston applied to be the Transport Manager on 3 other licences in August 2024. Two of those applications were supported by correspondence and contracts which gave no apparent thought or consideration to the matters raised in my decision in March 2024. The application regarding Mr McBride was addressed with a different contract by Mr Kingston but with no explanation as to why. When the cases were referred to me I noted the extant position with regards the letter of 5th June 2024 and advised that when an application was complete then it would need to come to a Hearing. My office was then told by Mr Kingston that he had instructed Mr Murray Oliver, Solicitor, to represent his interest. OTC then contacted Mr Oliver to obtain dates to avoid but after some exchanges Mr Oliver confirmed that he did not have formal instructions. Accordingly, the case was listed for 8th January 2025, in part to enable Mr Kingston to address me on his good repute.

It is important that I make clear here that Mr Kingston’s history strikes at the heart of his honesty and integrity. I refer to the disqualification undertaking document at pages 384/5 of the Public Inquiry Bundle. Mr Kingston was first disqualified as a Director under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 by way of undertaking on 14th November 2003 for 3 years and 6 months. On 5th May 2009 Mr Kingston was disqualified for a second time. This time for 2 years because he breached the first disqualification undertaking with regards to a company wound up in 2006. That period of disqualification was imposed by the Court upon conviction. Having been convicted on 5th May 2009 Mr Kingston then immediately acted in breach of that disqualification order namely from 5th May 2009 until 18th December 2009. The undertaking which commenced in September 2012 was a disqualification for 12 years. Not only for the repeated breach of disqualification orders but also because of serious financial irregularities.

In his letter dated 5th June 2024, Mr Kingston gives an account of what happened in 2009 which departs significantly, without wider explanation, from his admissions in the narrative in the disqualification undertaking narrative. By way of example, he states there was nothing to do with Logans in the last 6 months but, if money is being nefariously moved round for his benefit and to the detriment of other creditors then his account is contradictory. These are all matters that I would and could have covered with Mr Kingston had he chosen to make himself available for the Hearing.

Instead, Mr Kingston has failed to take the opportunity to address these matters and sent in misleading correspondence. This application remains current and is clearly shown as such on-VOL. Mr McBride tells me and I accept that he tried to get hold of Mr Kingston to discuss this Hearing and make necessary arrangements, but Mr Kingston failed to get back to him. Mr McBride had never intimated that he intended to withdraw this Licence application and make another one. That makes sense because there is no need to withdraw an application to nominate a different Transport Manager even if that had been his intention. Mr Kingston suggests that he had a previous appointment which he chose to take precedent over the Public Inquiry. That is a matter for him, but it does not assist him in terms if his good repute. If Mr Kingston had wanted an adjournment then he could have asked for one. What is untenable in this case is the fact that Mr Kingston asked me to “can” the Public Inquiry because neither he nor Mr McBride had any intention of coming. That was plainly untrue on the part of Mr McBride. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 1 above.

A copy of the case management decision handed down after the hearing on 8 January 2025 for PC2075750 ROBERT McBRIDE RJM TRAVEL is attached marked Annex A for completeness. Any future applications/hearings involving Mr Kingston will need to address paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 of that case management decision.

DECISION

Before being accepted in a role requiring good repute/fitness on any GB Operator Licence, Mr Stuart Kingston he will need to attend a reconvened Hearing of the extant issues before a Traffic Commissioner or Deputy Traffic Commissioner.

MISS SARAH BELL

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN

Issued: 14 January 2025