Decision for Swan Coaches Limited (PG2070477)
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-25)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for Wales for Swan Coaches Limited & Transport Manager Wayne Edward Michael Jones

IN THE WELSH TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR WALES

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD AT PONTYPRIDD ON 26 JUNE 2025

Swan Coaches Limited PG2070477 & Transport Manager Wayne Edward Michael Jones

Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”)

Decision in respect of Swan Coaches Limited PG2070477
- Pursuant to adverse findings under sections 14ZA(2), 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(e) of the Act, operator licence PG2070477 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on 18 July 2025.
Decision in respect of transport manager Wayne Edward Michael Jones

Transport Manager, Wayne Edward Michael Jones no longer satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Act to be of good repute.

Pursuant to paragraph 7B(2) of Schedule 3 to the Act, Wayne Edward Michael Jones is disqualified from acting as a transport manager on an operator’s licence for ONE year with effect from 23:45 hours on 18 July 2025.

Background

Swan Coaches Limited (“the operator”) holds a Public Service Vehicle Standard National Operator’s Licence authorising 4 vehicles which was granted at Public Inquiry before me on 24 April 2024. The directors of the operating company are Joshua Turner and Bethan Turner, who are husband and wife. The nominated transport manger is Wayne Jones, who is the half-brother of Joshua Turner. He has been the nominated transport manager on the licence since grant. The licence application was called to public inquiry because of concerns about the nominated transport manger, Wayne Jones, given that he was employed as an engineer in Coventry (where he lived), had relatively recently gained his CPC TM qualification and had no experience of acting as a transport manager. There were also concerns due to familial links to a recently revoked licence held by 24/7 Elaine’s Minitravel Ltd. The directors of that company, Michael Jones and Elaine Jones, were disqualified from holding an operator’s licence or being involved in the management, administration or control of an entity that holds a licence for a period of 3 years. Michael Jones is the father of both Joshua Turner, director of Swan Coaches Ltd, and of Wayne Jones, transport manger.

At the public inquiry on 24 April 2024, I was given assurances to address the concerns that had been raised. Specifically, that Wayne Jones had changed his working and living arrangements by the time of the inquiry hearing and was by then working part time as an engineer in Coventry and living in South Wales, and that Michael Jones would not be involved in the operation, except as a driver. Due to those assurances, I decided to grant the application with some additional undertakings. These were that the operator would arrange for an independent audit to be conducted within 6 months of licence grant, the report and operator’s proposals for implementing any recommendations to be sent to my office; and that Michael Jones and Elaine Jones would have no involvement in the management, administration or control of the operating entity, although Michael Jones may be employed as a driver.

The requested compliance audit report dated 16 October 2024 and prepared by RS Mitcham of the Road Haulage Association (“RHA”) was sent to my office on 4 November 2024 by director Joshua Turner. The audit report (at pages 73-102 of the public inquiry brief) identified some serious failings in the operator’s systems for complying with maintenance and drivers’ hours requirements. This included evidence of safety inspection intervals exceeding the 6 weekly intervals, and brake testing identified as a concern with safety inspection reports including incorrect brake data, or no brake assessments carried out at all, and with brake assessment sections on the inspection reports left blank. The auditor questioned the quality of driver walkaround checks and monitoring of those in view of the number of driver reportable defects repeatedly found at the periodic maintenance inspections, and there was no tyre management policy in place. The auditor also noted that it was evident that the transport manager was not reviewing the maintenance records on a regular basis given the shortcomings within the records, and he identified the need for a better understanding of roller brake test results – there were only two roller brake test records evidenced, but one incorrectly recorded the vehicle as a Class IV (car or light commercial vehicle) rendering the results incorrect, and the other included incorrect data as to the vehicle weight and so again the report showed incorrect brake efficiencies for the vehicle. There were, at the time of his audit (though not at the time of licence grant), 3 maintenance providers specified on the licence, although all inspection records he saw had been completed by one provider – Swansea Commercial Repairs Ltd. He noted that the proprietor of that company was the father of Wayne Jones – Michael Jones. In respect of drivers’ hours compliance, there was no policy in place for collection and storage of manual tachograph records and arrangements for recording driver absences and non-driving days was not being recorded on drivers’ cards, as required by legislation.

In his accompanying letter enclosing the report and the operator’s action plan for implementing its recommendations, Joshua Turner referenced low operations since the licence was granted and stated that he would appreciate the chance to put the audit recommendations in place. He asked that the operator be given the chance to do so and the opportunity to demonstrate this by way of a further audit in another six months’ time. By letter of 19 November 2024, the operator was advised that I agreed to that request in view of the assurances given and the operator was issued with a warning in respect of the compliance failings identified by the audit report. The operator agreed to a further audit report assessing compliance with maintenance and drivers’ hours requirements by 7 May 2025.

The second RHA audit report (at pages 115-148 of the public inquiry brief) was carried out on 9 April 2025 by the same auditor and was submitted to my office by Joshua Turner on 30 April 2025. That report identified many of the same concerns that were raised in the audit report carried out in October 2024 and in respect of which assurances had been given by the operator, including in road safety critical areas, such as brake testing, driver defect reporting and maintenance inspections. Although brake tests had been carried out since the last audit, 10 of the 16 records reviewed showed an incorrect PSV brake code, rendering the results unreliable. This was highlighted as a concern to the operator and transport manager in October, with advice given and recommendations made then about ensuring that the correct code is used and that the transport manager and operator needed to understand how to interpret the brake test results. Several of the brake tests were carried out up to 8 days after the safety inspection and there was no record of a further brake test, as required, following brake adjustment to rectify a brake imbalance. There was still no documented wheel and tyre management policy in place and, of the 17 safety inspection records reviewed, only 2 resulted in no adverse observations from the auditor. He again found numerous instances of driver reportable defects found at safety inspection, brake performance assessment sections not completed, defects recorded on the report, but no description of repairs carried out. He also noted that an inspection record for one on the operator’s vehicles was dated 23/10/24 but the vehicle failed its MOT only 2 days later, having only covered 45 miles since that safety inspection. The auditor commented that the driver defect notes he had seen were marked as report to “Mike” and not to the operator or transport manager which he noted was not in compliance with the bespoke undertaking on the licence, viz that Michael Jones would have no involvement in the management, administration or control of Swan Coaches Ltd. His recommendation in that regard was that the operator must ensure that defects are directed to a person with authority to take appropriate action and that licence undertakings are complied with. He noted that there was a new maintenance contract in place dated 4 April 2025, 5 days before his audit, and that there was now only one maintenance provider listed on the licence, with Michael Jones’ company no longer used. Due to the very recent change, there was only one safety inspection record completed by the new provider which was accompanied by a correctly completed brake performance assessment, but again 5 tyres identified as needing replacement which should have been picked up by drivers completing daily walkaround checks. Concerns were raised that the safety inspection reports were still not being reviewed by a competent person, and none had been marked to confirm that they had been reviewed by the transport manager to determine that the vehicle was fit to return to the road. The day before the RHA audit, the operator had conducted its own review of the new maintenance provider using an IRTE checklist which had identified some areas of non-compliance which needed to be discussed with the new contractor, leading the auditor to comment that maintenance standards and the quality of the external maintenance providers remains an issue that will need to be closely monitored. There were still no CPD records available for the transport manager, who was not present for the audit. In respect of drivers’ hours compliance, the auditor found that the operator remained unaware of the requirement for drivers to be in possession of records of all their activities for the previous 28 days and there was little understanding of the recording requirements for rest and non-driving activity with no manual records being made. There was still no policy in place for collection and storage of manual tachograph records and arrangements for recording driver absences and non-driving days were still not being recorded on drivers’ cards, as required by legislation.

Joshua Turner’s letter of 30 April 2025 enclosing the second audit report enclosed a further “action plan” for implementing the recommendations and asked for another chance going forward to put the recommendations in place. He pointed to comments from the auditor that the operator had acted upon recommendations made in the previous audit and made significant changes, and Mr Turner proposed an annual audit.

Public Inquiry

In view of the persistent shortcomings identified in the audit reports, including concern about the undertaking restricting Michael Jones’ involvement apparently not being complied with, the operator was called to a public inquiry to consider these matters and to give the operator the opportunity to explain what it is doing to ensure compliance with the rules and the fulfilment of the undertakings given. The call up letter dated 19 May 2025 was sent by email and by post and advised the operator that a public inquiry would be held at 2pm on 26 June 2025 in Pontypridd. It set out the issues of concern with reference to relevant legislative provisions – specifically sections 14ZA(2), 17(3)(a), (aa), and (e), and the regulatory action that I might take. The letter explained that, if the operator did not attend, the case would be heard in its absence. Case Management Directions attached to the call up letter required the operator to send to my office, at least 14 days before the hearing, evidence of its financial standing, which was identified as an area of concern, and its recent maintenance records in respect of two of its vehicles and evidence of its systems for managing drivers.

Transport Manager, Wayne Jones, was also called to the public inquiry to consider whether he continued to meet the requirements to be of good repute and professionally competent. The call up letter dated 19 May 2025 was sent to him by email to the address he provided to OTC. The OTC caseworker received a delivery receipt confirming that the email was delivered to that email address. The call up letter and PI brief sent by recorded delivery were initially sent to him at the operator’s old operating address and this was returned to OTC marked recipient not at that address. The letter and Brief were then sent by recorded delivery to his home address specified on VOL - an address in Neath, South Wales. The Royal Mail tracking information confirmed that the item was successfully delivered on 28 May 2025. The Case Management Directions attached to his call up letter required him to send the same maintenance records and drivers hours records to my office as the operator was directed to provide at least 14 days before the hearing, unless the operator had already submitted those. He was also invited to submit any representations, witness statements or reports that he wished me to take account of at least 7 days before the hearing. The call up letter explained the importance of attending the hearing in person and that a failure to do so may result in me hearing the case in his absence.

The public inquiry called in Pontypridd on 26 June 2025. Neither the operator nor the transport manager attended the inquiry hearing. Joshua Turner had emailed my office and the OTC corporate office on 29 May 2025 with reference to the call up letter expressing concern that the operator had been called to the public inquiry and asking that his email be treated as a complaint about the decision to do so. The Hearing Centre Manager for OTC Wales responded to him by email on 13 June 2025 attaching a letter of that date. The letter reminded Joshua Turner that the public inquiry would provide an opportunity for him to present evidence of any improvements in full and that the presiding Traffic Commissioner would consider all relevant material, including compliance history, mitigating factors and the current approach to compliance. The letter also advised Mr Turner that I had decided to extend the deadline for submitting the required documents and any additional evidence to 20 June 2025 (given that the deadline had passed) and he was invited to contact the office if he had any further questions about the forthcoming public inquiry hearing. The operator did not submit the requested financial evidence or maintenance and drivers’ hours records and nor did it submit any additional evidence for my consideration. Transport Manager, Wayne Jones, did not submit any evidence or written representations in advance of the hearing.

I was satisfied that the operator and transport manager had been properly served with the call up letters and public inquiry brief and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in their absence. I indicated that I would make my decision on the evidence available to me included in the public inquiry brief and I reserved my decision.

Findings of fact

I make the following findings on the evidence before me and on the balance of probabilities:

Statements made when the licence was applied for have not been fulfilled, namely that the operator’s vehicles would be inspected at the 6 weekly intervals it promised they would be. Accordingly, I find that section 17(3)(a) of the Act is made out;

Undertakings recorded in the licence have not been fulfilled, namely that the operator would observe the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and keep proper records; that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable; that drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing; and that Michael Jones would have no involvement in the management, administration, or control of Swan Coaches Ltd, other than as a driver. I noted Josh Turner’s response to the auditor’s comment and recommendations as to compliance with this undertaking (within the second Action Plan at page 154 of the brief) where he stated that defects were also reported to him, a well as to his father, Michael Jones, who was then the maintenance provider, and that he was unaware that reports should not have gone to Michael Jones. However, the auditor’s evidence at page 130 of the brief is clear that the defect notes he saw were marked as reported to “Mike” and not to a person with authority to take appropriate action. The undertaking on the licence is unambiguous and was specifically intended to limit Michael Jones’ role within the company to that of a driver. As the person receiving defect reports from drivers, I find that he must have exercised a degree of control over whether those defects needed to be rectified straight away, or whether they could be monitored until rectified at a later date, or indeed at the next periodic maintenance inspection. Given the sheer number of driver reportable defects found on the maintenance inspection records, that appears to be what was happening. There is clearly an element of management decision making, which the operator undertook Michael Jones would not be involved in. Accordingly, I find that section 17(3)(aa) of the Act is made out.

The operator licensing regime is based on trust. In NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI the Upper Tribunal said:

$CTA

“The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times the Department in Northern Ireland (and Traffic Commissioners in GB), must feel able to trust operators to comply with all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field…cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation. It is important that operators understand that if their actions cast doubt on whether they can be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime they are likely to be called to a Public Inquiry at which their fitness to hold an operator’s licence will be called into question. It will become clear, in due course, that fitness to hold an operator’s licence is an essential element of good repute.”

$CTA

In view of my findings regarding the operator’s failure to comply with statements of expectation and licence undertakings I am entitled to question its fitness to hold a licence, which is an essential element of good repute. The Upper Tribunal has held that a persistent failure to comply with undertakings, especially following a warning, may provide compelling reasons to conclude that there has been a loss of repute (2011/036 LWB Ltd). Following receipt of the first audit report from the operator in November 2024, I issued a warning to the operator in view of the compliance failings evidenced in that report and which the operator undertook to address. However, the operator failed to heed that warning and, once again, failed to follow through on the promises it made to comply with its licence undertakings as evidenced by the second audit report. I find that the operator has breached the trust placed in it, which is fundamental to the operator licensing system.

In considering whether it is proportionate to make a finding of loss of good repute, I have also had regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Guidance in Statutory Document 1 on good repute and fitness, which reminds me that a failure to supply records that a Traffic Commissioner has reasonably requested is likely to result in adverse findings against repute. I have considered the relevant Upper Tribunal case law, including 2015/040 Tacsi Gwynedd Ltd, and 2019/011 V Larkin and others where the Upper Tribunal said:

“In the absence of such records, it is impossible to make an assessment of the roadworthiness or otherwise of the fleet and it is an irresistible conclusion flowing from that failure that it either demonstrates wilful disregard for compliance or that the operator has something to hide.”

The operator’s failure to provide any of the requested documentation and its failure to attend the public inquiry hearing also go directly to the question of its fitness to hold an operator’s licence and I find that there has been a material change in that regard and that it has lost its good repute as an operator and no longer satisfies the requirements of s14ZA(2) of the Act. Its failure to provide the requested evidence of its financial standing leads me to find that I cannot be satisfied that the operator meets the requirements of s14ZA(2) of the Act as to financial standing and I find that there has been a material change in that regard and the mandatory requirement is no longer met. Accordingly, I find that section 17(3)(e) of the Act is made out.

There were persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response, even following the warning given after the first audit report. The auditor commented that the operator had acted upon the recommendations made in the previous audit report and made significant changes, particularly in relation to vehicle maintenance in preparation for this audit, commenting that the change in maintenance providers was much needed and should improve levels of compliance, but noting that the quality of external maintenance providers remains an issue which will need to be closely monitored by the operator. However, the findings of the second audit report, when compared with the first, show that the same failure in key safety critical areas have persisted and, other than the frequency of inspections having improved, there remained serious concerns about driver defect reporting, monitoring and auditing, brake testing, completion of inspection records, monitoring of inspection records and compliance with drivers’ hours record keeping requirements and recording of drivers’ activities. The operator was given the opportunity to demonstrate how it had improved since the second audit report by submitting its maintenance and drivers’ hours records for the period between 9 April 2025 and 20 June 2025. However, it passed up that opportunity do so, leading me to the irresistible conclusion to be drawn from that failure, referred to in the V Larkin case. There was ineffective management control and insufficient procedures in place to prevent the compliance failures found. There was ineffective driver training with insufficient or ineffective monitoring in place, particularly as regards driver walkaround checks and defect reporting. There was no evidence before me of changes made to ensure future compliance. The second “action plan” submitted by Joshua Turner referred to training courses that had been attended, or had been booked, but there was no documentary evidence to support those assertions, and no evidence of training courses attended was produced for the public inquiry hearing. There were still insufficient procedures in place to ensure the appropriate use of manual records or tachograph cards by drivers by the time of the second audit report and no evidence to demonstrate improvement in that regard by the time of the inquiry. The operator has a low first-time pass rate at MOT (albeit the licence has only been in force for a year) but I noted multiple failure items at MOT test in October 2024, including for road safety critical defects. That vehicle was a PSV that had a safety inspection carried out by Michael Jones only 2 days beforehand, which raises serious concerns about the operator’s maintenance arrangements and the safety of its vehicles.

I find that Wayne Jones, in his capacity as transport manager, failed in his duty effectively and continuously to manage all the transport activities of the business, as required by the legislation. Specifically, I find that he failed to exercise effective quality controls over the driver defect walkaround system and their reporting of defects. He failed effectively to monitor the brake testing arrangements, and the maintenance inspection records, with the auditor noting that none of those had been marked to confirm that he had reviewed them. The first audit report clearly identified areas in which he had fallen down in his duties as transport manager, yet the same failures persisted at the time of the second audit report. There is very little evidence of his involvement in the operation at all, and he was not even present at the time of the audit. He has provided no evidence to demonstrate that he continues to fulfil the requirements of transport manager by showing how he effectively and continuously manages or managed the transport operations of Swan Coaches Ltd. Nor has he provided any explanation or mitigation for his failings and, by failing to attend the inquiry hearing, has passed up the opportunity of giving evidence in that regard.

Considerations and Decisions in respect of the operator

I have weighed up these adverse findings with the positive features in considering regulatory action. On the positive side, the operator did make some changes after the first audit report, as noted by the auditor, a significant change was that it had changed the maintenance provider and was no longer using Michael Jones’ company. The one safety inspection record and brake report from the new provider was much improved. However, that change was made only a few days before the second audit was conducted in April 2025, when the auditor had identified concerns 6 months previously. I noted that there had been no prohibition notices issued by the DVSA.

Balancing these negative and positive features and having regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10, I consider this case to be in the “severe to serious” category. I have already determined that the operator no longer continues to satisfy the continuing and mandatory requirements to be of good repute and to have appropriate financial standing, for the reasons set out above. I must therefore revoke this licence pursuant to section 17(1)(a) of the Act. I direct that the licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on 18 July 2025 to allow for an orderly run down of operations.

Having concluded that Wayne Jones has lost his repute as transport manager, as he no longer satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Act, for the reasons set out below, revocation of the licence is also mandatory under section 17(1)(b) of the Act.

Considerations and Decisions in respect of transport manager Wayne Jones

In considering the good repute of Wayne Jones as transport manager, I performed the same balancing exercise set out above in relation to the operator and have concluded that no transport manager presiding over that degree of non-compliance could retain his repute. The lack of any evidence to show what Wayne Jones was doing in terms of monitoring, reviewing and managing the maintenance arrangements and the driver walkaround checks and defect reporting and rectification is particularly concerning and leads me to conclude that he was not doing so or, if he was, the actions he took were ineffective. He was apparently due to attend Transport Manager refresher training in June 2025, but there is no evidence presented to demonstrate that he did so. The role of the transport manager is a key one which Wayne Jones has failed to fulfil effectively, resulting in a clear risk to road safety.

I am aware from the previous public inquiry hearing when I granted this licence that Wayne Jones passed the CPC Transport Manger qualification in 2023 and had not acted as a Transport Manager on any licence before this. He is a CAD engineer with a background in vehicle engineering and gave me assurances that he would have capacity to fulfil the role of transport manager on this licence, despite concerns being raised about time spent on his other employment. Whether his failings as transport manager on this licence were due to the fact that he was unable continuously and effectively manage the transport operation because of a lack of time given his other commitments, or because of the involvement of his father, I am unable to determine because he has not provided any evidence in that regard. He has failed to meet the expectations that the public rightly have of him as transport manager to ensure that PSVs are operated safely and legally.

In considering whether his good repute is lost, rather than merely tarnished, I cannot avoid the comments of the appellate Tribunal in (2014/050) Andrew Harris trading as Harris of Leicester: “Given the importance attached to operators complying with the regulatory regime and given that transport manager must “effectively and continuously manage the transport activities of an undertaking holding an operator’s licence” it seems to us that whether or not an individual has the character, personality, ability and leadership qualities to ensure compliant operation as an operator or to effectively and continuously manage the transport activities as a transport manager is a factor which can properly be taken into account when assessing good repute.” The Tribunal has confirmed in (2014/058) Angus Smales trading as Angus Smales Eventing, that being a transport manager is far more than just holding the qualification. I find that Wayne Jones has not demonstrated the ability to meet the statutory duty and that continues to be the case. In the circumstances, and as was confirmed in (2015/049) Matthew Reynolds, I must find that the has lost his repute as transport manager and no longer satisfies the requirements of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Act. I have considered whether such a finding would be a disproportionate response but have determined that such a finding is entirely appropriate and indeed inevitable on the evidence before me.

Having concluded that Wayne Jones’ good repute is lost, I must also disqualify him under paragraph 7B(2) of Schedule 3 to the Act from acting as a transport manager on an operator’s licence. I am unable to set any appropriate rehabilitation measure as Wayne Jones failed to attend the hearing or explain his circumstances. He reduced his hours to part time as an engineer before being accepted as transport manager on this licence. I have no information as to whether there would be adverse financial implications for him as a result of disqualification. I consider that disqualification for a period of one year is proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances and that disqualification will commence at 23:45 hours on 18 July 2025.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

7th July 2025