Decision for Christopher Webb (PH1131347)
Source: gov.uk (2025-06-03)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Christopher Webb and transport manager Steven Caulston

WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

Public Inquiry in Bristol, 15 April 2025

CHRISTOPHER WEBB – PH1131347

STEVEN CAULSTON – TRANSPORT MANAGER

BACKGROUND

Christopher Webb is the holder of a standard national public service vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of two vehicles from an operating centre at Portsmouth Truck Stop. The licence started in 2014 replacing a previous restricted licence which had been granted in 2008. The transport manager is Steven Caulston. The operator previously attended a public inquiry in 2016 where a formal warning was issued.

The operator came to the attention of DVSA following a vehicle stop on 6 July 2024 where driver Ian Horan was found to be driving with an expired driving licence. That matter was dealt with by PC James Spratt. DVSA Traffic Examiner Allen Cox found apparent offences relating to the failure to produce a driver card or tachograph record sheet. Two fixed penalties were issued, each of £300.

A follow-up investigation was conducted by Traffic Examiner Maggie Rowlands. She found a number of shortcomings in relation to training, DBS checks, tachograph management and disciplinary proceedings. Several were contested by the operator.

On referral to me, it was noted that the licence had two undertakings attached

Vehicles with eight passenger seats or less will not be operated under the licence without the prior written agreement of the traffic commissioner who may require you to agree to certain undertakings, and

Limousines and novelty type vehicles are not to be operated under this operator’s licence

It was obvious from the examiner’s report that the operator was operating limousines and party buses. There were also apparent links to a limited company, Arrive in Style Portsmouth Limited and concerns of licence-lending. I decided to call the operator and transport manager to public inquiry. Ian Horan was called to a conjoined driver conduct hearing.

The standard directions required Mr Webb to send tachograph evidence to TE Rowlands and maintenance compliance documentation and any other relevant evidence or submissions to my office or upload via Case Center. The transport manager complied with a neatly-ordered compliance bundle. Mr Webb clearly struggled with uploading and chose instead to email evidence to my office. Unfortunately, he had chosen to send forty-six separate emails with at least three hundred and twenty-four attachments. I issued directions on 8 April for the evidence to be properly bundled, indexed and labelled. Mr Webb complied.

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Christopher Webb and Steven Caulston attended unrepresented. Traffic Examiners Allen Cox and Maggie Rowlands attended for DVSA. There was no attendance from Ian Horan . Mr Webb told me that he had previously instructed legal representation but, following a change of inquiry date, his solicitor became unavailable. Mr Webb confirmed that he was content to proceed unrepresented. He told me that the two fixed penalty notices had been appealed nine months ago, and Mr Horan had assumed that they had been dropped. Mr Webb questioned whether they should be linked to his licence as it was claimed to be personal use.

Traffic Examiner Cox adopted his witness statement. He told me that he was on patrol in a marked police car with PC Spratt. They came across a vehicle of interest which was not showing as being attached to an operator licence. They stopped the vehicle and saw Mr Webb’s operator licence disc in the windscreen. Mr Horan told him that he had just dropped off a hen party in Waterlooville from Poole and was on his way back. TE Cox believed him to being paid that day. The vehicle had seventeen seats including the driver’s. The vehicle was fitted with a tachograph but would not download for either TE Cox nor PC Spratt. It was unusual for a tachograph not to download. Mr Horan wasn’t using his digicard and had never used it because he had been told by his employer (Christopher Webb) that he didn’t have to.

When they stopped the vehicle, the disc was in the window, but it disappeared at some point during the encounter. TE Cox spoke to Mr Webb on the phone, and he had said that the disc should not have been in the window.

I asked about the status of the fixed penalty notices. I was told that one had been referred to the court for non-payment, the second had been withdrawn.

Mr Webb wanted to know whether TE Cox had the engine running when he attempted to download the tachograph. TE Cox told me that he would have tried with the ignition on and with the engine running. Mr Webb said that he had evidence that the engine wasn’t running and that the ignition was off. TE Cox told me that the ignition must have been on for the tachograph to have accepted his card and for him to have been able to take a printout which he had done. Mr Webb referred me to a document at page 248 of the bundle which he said showed that the engine was not running. That appeared to be tracking data. It appeared to show a period of time from 19:30:38 to 19:37:37 when the vehicle was “parked” and engine idling is showed as 0s. The vehicle then moved for 1 minute. I noted that the data showed the vehicle apparently with the engine off but pulling away with no elapsed period of idling at all which appeared not to make sense.

Mr Webb told me that the vehicle had originally been registered incorrectly by DVLA as a goods vehicle, N2 category, at 5 tonnes. He had submitted it for a PSV MOT, but it was rejected and Sparks Commercials MOT’d it as Class 5 (private use). I could not extract a question to put to the Traffic Examiner.

Mr Webb wanted to know how TE Cox had ascertained that Mr Horan had been paid on the day in question. TE Cox had not specifically asked whether he was being paid but he had asked Mr Horan on whose instructions he had been working and he referred to Mr Webb as his boss.

Traffic Examiner Maggie Rowlands adopted her public inquiry report and the pre-PI addendum. As the operator and transport manager had not seen the report, I paused proceedings so that hard copies of the 2-page document could be provided. In relation to the evidence requested in the call-up, TE Rowlands told me that she received 3-months tachograph data for NL71WFG, she received nothing for YN08BPO despite it having been driven in the period on 7 December, she received driver licence checks but no infringement reports (but there may not have been any). These was no missing mileage report, just a spreadsheet. No evidence of continuing professional development nor of disciplinary action. Other documents were received which had not been requested, wall-planner, three MOT documents for NL71WFG and a letter with respect to the MOT for that vehicle which had not been received previously, along with some brake reports and other maintenance documents. DBS checks were received for two drivers. There were no infringements in the period. Driver records did not have any other work showing.

TE Rowlands told me that she had received a damaged envelope on 11 December 2024. It arrived on her desk, with no memory stick inside. She was out and about that day and she went to see the operator. It took the operator a “good hour” to reproduce the data on the stick which seemed odd if they had produced it a few days earlier.

I referred to a table of registered keepers at page 78 of the bundle and asked who she believed to be the registered keeper of YN08BPO which was recorded as “Arrive In Style”. TE Rowlands told me that she believed that to be a limited company belonging to Carol Webb at the same address as Christopher Webb and the concern related to possible licence-lending. There was no evidence that any licence-lending had actually taken place.

I gave Mr Webb the opportunity to ask questions through me. He asked why TE Rowlands thought there might be a link between his operation and Arrive in Style. The response was that the listed address was the same as his own.

TE Rowlands confirmed that she had initially had a problem downloading YN08BPO until the engine was running. She and the operator had identified the issue at around the same time. The Examiner did not require the operator’s assistance, but it had been given.

TE Rowlands confirmed that it appeared to her that the transport manager had not been aware of the police/DVSA encounter when she arrived at the premises. She asked Mr Webb why that was the case and was told that it was because it was a private vehicle so there was no reason for Mr Caulston to know. TE Rowlands did not know who downloaded the data to the memory stick as she had stepped outside to avoid making them nervous.

Steven Caulston told me that he had obtained his CPC back in the 1990s. He had been involved in the industry ever since. He had attended DVSA seminars, and he ran a website where he updated other transport managers using notifications from my office and other places. His last refresher training was just prior to Covid. He visited this operator every week and produced every week a report for the operator.

I asked about Mr Caulston’s control over the allocation of work. Allocation was done by Mr Webb. Mr Caulston said which drivers could be used. He had set a spread-over limit of 12 hours. The drivers were employed by Christopher Webb. They were retired and just did part-time bits and pieces. He was not aware that they did any other work. They were required to declare that on the job sheets.

Mr Caulston hadn’t been aware of the existence of NL71WFG in July 2024. He knew that Mr Webb did conversions and built party buses but didn’t know of that vehicle. He had no idea how a disc came to be in the window and was surprised that it had been when there were two PSV vehicles doing nothing that day. He had recently seen an email from Mr Horan saying that he had messed up. Mr Webb had also been surprised that a disc had been in the window. Several years previously, a vehicle had been stolen, and it had a disc in it. The policy now was that any vehicles parked outside would have the disc removed. The discs were with the job card. Previously he had ordered two discs by mistake and had then tightened up procedures.

I asked why TE Rowlands had not been provided with everything that had been requested. Mr Webb had told him that everything had been sent. The software they used didn’t produce missing mileage reports, so he produced a spreadsheet. They had now introduced a new system.

I asked why there was no data for YN08. Mr Caulston had just realised that he had only produced in his evidence from January. It had slipped his mind. He would send it subsequently. The vehicle had been sold and VOR’d in January.

Christopher Webb told me that he had gone into the motor trade from school and became an MOT inspector. He then went in to hiring cars without drivers, contract hire, then a restricted licence. He had got in touch with Steve (Caulston), thought he was fantastic, and everything was going really good. He had attended public inquiry in front of TC Sarah Bell in 2016. It was agreed that he and his wife would surrender their restricted licences and bring it together under a standard licence. It was also agreed to break all links with Arrive in Style Portsmouth Ltd and have all his own socials. His social media pages were all named to attract searches. Arrive in Style Portsmouth Limited was his wife’s company which didn’t even hire vehicles like his. Arrive in Style was his trading style.

Mr Webb normally has minibus-type vehicles with sideways facing seats. He also operated stretched limousines and any vehicle that becomes popular over the years. Years ago, it was the pink limo – now that was unwanted. The current trend was American style “Jetliners” with all reclining seats with phone connectivity. Hummers and limos were not popular. Limousines might do a dozen weddings a year whereas a party bus would do one trip a week. Sometimes people wanted vehicles just for TikTok videos.

He had acquired NL71WFG in lock-down. It was a crew-seat bus when he bought it, 17 seats including the driver. The floor had a rail, and it could take either sideways or forward-facing seats and was homologated for both. He bought it unseen. When it arrived, the paperwork said it was a 3-seat HGV. Finally, DVLA agreed to change its registration. He then submitted it for PSV test, but the VOSA (sic) man refused as there wasn’t a technical record. There was much correspondence with DVSA, but he couldn’t get it changed. After the vehicle stop, DVSA changed the MOT to a passenger vehicle. It was only after the vehicle stop that DVSA sorted it out.

I noted that the vehicle had been acquired in February 2022 and that, by the time of its first PSV MOT in October 2024 it had covered 68,000 kms. Mr Webb told me that he had been using it as the family vehicle. He had a big family, so they used it three or four times a week. On 6 July last year, he had dropped it off at the unit. He was at the pub. He was due to take out all the girls who had an Air BnB in Bournemouth. Ian Horan offered to do it. He looked at his licence and he had a C1, a D1 101, so he said, you know, there’s no money in it. Ian said that was OK, he was after a day out. The group was the wives of the lads at the football club. I asked whether there was any evidence to support this account of events. There was not because it was private use.

Mr Horan was paid £15 an hour but it was paid monthly at a minimum because the work was seasonal. He had had Mr Horan in on 4 May after his licence had expired and said that he would not drive. That was when he had stopped using the tachograph. I put it directly to Mr Webb that it appeared he was telling me that he had a salaried employee, driving his bus, who had said he had taken his instructions from his “boss”, him, but it was claimed that it was a non-commercial journey. “Correct” was the response.

I asked why Mr Webb had given a “no comment” interview. Mr Webb told me that the interview had been sprung on him, and he hadn’t been told what it was about in advance. There was one point which was about the disc where he had asked about the number on the back as the discs were locked-away in a cabinet. There were two PSV vehicles there that day. He did not know why Mr Horan had put the disc in the vehicle.

I referred to the interview notes. Mr Webb said that he had been declined legal representation. TE Rowlands asks “who told you you couldn’t have legal representation?”. I noted that Mr Webb had answered “no comment”. So, I asked him myself and he told me that Citizen’s Advice had told him that he couldn’t get legal aid. He couldn’t get legal representation for that interview, so he went “no comment”. He had not asked for the interview to be suspended while he got legal representation.

I referred to the licence undertaking not to operate limousines or novelty vehicles and asked why he was doing that. Mr Webb told me that the limousines were operated separately. They were 8-seats operated for weddings only. They were on PHV licences until lockdown but not since. There was a grey area with party buses, but they were basically a minibus, no mechanical difference. I noted that the vehicle in question was a party bus, with sideways-facing seats. No, it was a minibus, I was told. I pointed out that sideways-facing seats were not normal in a minibus which would normally have forward-facing seats.

Passengers always brought their own alcohol. If it was a 21st birthday, they would check ID. They would provide soft drinks. No alcohol at all was allowed if it was for football. No glass was allowed on board. It was plastic throwaway or polycarbonate.

I asked about the impact of any regulatory action. The Hummer had been sold but he needed two vehicles. The Hummer had 15 seats for passengers. It came from America as a limousine, but DVLA registered it as a minibus. Suspension of the licence for, say, a month would close the business. If the licence were revoked, he would have to run the business in a different way, not dry-hire because that was horrendous.

Mr Webb told he was upset that Mr Caulston had been brought into this. He was a fantastic transport manager. It was all a mess of paperwork.

Mr Caulston asked about the definition of novelty vehicles. He told me that TC Bell knew the type of vehicle to be operated when the licence was granted. She considered novelty vehicles to be things like fire engines that were used as party buses. The Hummer was registered as a minibus. The party bus was simply a crew bus with added lights and speakers. Mr Caulston wanted clarity as to what constituted a novelty vehicle. I said I would deal with that in my written decision, reserved my decision and closed the hearing.

CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

Financial standing is satisfied.

I turn to the facts of the Police and DVSA encounter of 6 July 2025. The first question is whether it was a commercial or private journey. In terms of it being a private journey, I have Mr Webb’s witness evidence, and an email dated 29 March 2025 from driver Horan saying that he had “messed up” by putting the disc in the window. It’s not clear what he means by “messed up”.

When interviewed at the roadside, Mr Horan refers to Mr Webb as his “boss”. He says that he has just taken a hen party to Waterlooville from Poole. He is interviewed and reported by a police officer for driving without the correct driving entitlement. If it was a private journey, why not declare it at that point and rely on his D1 101 entitlement. He is interviewed and issued two fixed penalties for not using a tachograph and not then producing his tachograph evidence, still no mention of the private use, simply that his boss had told him not to use his tachograph. Why put a disc in the window? If the hen party were all friends of Mr Webb, why have I not been provided with statements from them to that effect – that would surely have been easy to achieve? Why was Mr Horan being paid? It just does not stack up. I find, on the balance of probabilities but by a very wide margin, that the journey on 6 July 2024 was a commercial journey. If Mr Horan messed up, it was by not having adopted the “personal use” story at the roadside and by telling the truth instead. It is not material to my decision, but it seems likely that Mr Webb had told Mr Horan not to use his card because Mr Webb did not want Mr Caulston to become aware of the driving otherwise than in accordance with the licence entitlement. Section 17(3)(aa) is made out in that there was a failure to comply with the most basic rules in relation to driver and vehicle licensing and that the tachograph rules were not complied with. I attach significant weight.

It follows that I attribute the fixed penalty notices to this licence holder but not against the transport manager who I believe was entirely unaware of the position. Given that the two offences arise from the same misconduct; if a tachograph record has not been made, then it cannot be produced and it becomes unreasonable to pursue the second offence. I suspect that is why DVSA discontinued with one of the notices with the second being referred for payment collection. I consider it a single wrongdoing at the behest of the operator. Section 17(3)(e) is made out.

The tachograph in NL71WFG failed to download at the roadside. I am surprised that Mr Webb went to such lengths to try to lay the blame for the failure to download on the Examiner. Traffic Examiners download tachographs every day of the week. It is what they do. To suggest that the tachograph in his own vehicle was of a newer type that required a specific process is a nonsense. That is supported by the fact that the police officer’s equipment would also not connect. TE Cox gave evidence to his training and to the fact that the tachograph head unit must have been powered up because he took a printout. My conclusion is that the tachograph must have been defective. However, having no evidence that the vehicle had previously been used commercially, I attach little weight.

In relation to the MOT status of the vehicle, I have seen evidence that it was originally registered by Mercedes as a 5-tonne HGV. I have seen evidence of attempts to have that corrected. Mr Webb had been trying to do the right thing. Whether it had been used commercially on other occasions is not known. I have no evidence to suggest that it had been other than that a 16-seater party bus is an unusual family vehicle. I find that it was used with the wrong MOT on 6 July 2024, but I attach limited weight to this finding given the sound condition of the vehicle and the attempts made by Mr Webb to have the situation regularised.

Mr Webb has an unusual and incorrect understanding of the law by claiming that the vehicle did not require the tachograph to be used because it had been MOT’d as Class 4 and so could only carry eight passengers and should be treated as an eight-seater. The vehicle when stopped had sixteen passenger seats with sixteen passenger seat belts. It is patently not an eight-seat vehicle. It is very difficult to follow Mr Webb’s logic here, especially when the vehicle had actually been MOT’d as Class 5, a private bus with more than eight seats. Fortunately, nothing turns on this point.

I am perplexed at the incident recalled by TE Rowlands of a damaged envelope appearing on her desk claiming to have contained a memory stick of the requested tachograph data. TE Rowlands immediately attended the operating centre where both operator and transport manager were present and then were, for some considerable time, unable to copy the relevant files to a new memory stick. TE Rowlands was surprised at that given they claimed to have carried out precisely that activity just a couple of days earlier. The operator was unable to explain why they had been unable to recreate the identical records. The natural conclusion is that the damaged envelope had never contained any memory stick.

The licence has an undertaking that limousines and novelty vehicles will not be used under its authority. The situation with the Hummer is clear. It is a limousine. There can be no argument. It was imported as a limousine and was marketed as a limousine. I am told that the V5 records it as a minibus. The Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 define a minibus as “a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 but not more than 16 seated passengers in addition to the driver”. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a limousine as “a large, expensive, and luxurious passenger car, often driven by a chauffeur, that is distinguished by its elongated body and extended wheelbase”. The Hummer satisfies both definitions. Using it without permission to vary the licence undertaking was a serious breach and I attach significant weight.

The situation with the party bus is more difficult. Now that it has been properly MOT’d as Class 6, it would appear that it must have been certified with the sideways-facing seats. I am not aware that there have been any structural modifications to the vehicle and, it having had a Class 6 MOT, I must take it that it meets Schedule 6 of the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations. I can find no definition of the term “novelty vehicle”. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory guidance is silent upon the term. The Oxford dictionary has a definition for “novelty” as “new, unusual or has not been done before”. Party buses are not new and have definitely been done before. The sideways facing seats do make them unusual and there is significantly less protection afforded by the seatbelts so I would expect to see a risk assessment for that, as I would for the other unusual aspect of the operation which is drinking on board. However, I do not take issue with the operator for using party buses with the undertaking prohibiting “novelty vehicles” in place. I will request that the term is clarified in the guidance. Meanwhile, I will take the term not to include party buses.

Mr Caulston sought to rely upon the previous preliminary hearing in front of my colleague, TC Miss Bell. The decision from that hearing is not in my bundle. I have retrieved the decision letter which states the following:

Public Inquiry not required.

Formal warning.

Variation application granted as applied for.

Undertaking: Mr Christopher Webb will attend a 1 day operator licence awareness course, run by a trade association (FTA/ RHA/ BAR/ CPT), a professional body (IoTA/SOE/ IRTE), a JAUPT approved training body or an OCR/CILT approved exam centre by no later than 31 October 2016. A copy of the certificate of attendance will be sent to the Central Licensing Office in Leeds within seven days of the course taking place.(Note, if an operator wishes to use a provider not meeting these criteria, that must be agreed in advance with the Traffic Commissioner)

There is nothing there to assist with whether or not Miss Bell was aware of the vehicles being operated. However, I have found at page 38 of my brief the original application form which sought permission to operate limousines and novelty vehicles. The licence was granted without that permission. It is clear that the undertaking prohibiting the use of limousines and novelty vehicles is attached to the licence. If that was incompatible with the operator’s business, it was for the operator to seek to have it removed.

The call-up referred to a concern in relation to licence lending to Arrive in Style Portsmouth Limited. I found no evidence to support that.

I turn to Mr Webb’s “no comment” interview. He provided a written statement in which he said that he had “been declined legal representation”. I can accept that is a right in a criminal process and he was under caution but to answer, “no comment” to a straightforward question “who told you you couldn’t have legal representation?” is quite simply obstructive. The Examiner knew that not to be the true position and was obviously trying to help. TE Rowlands said in her conclusion “I found Mr Webb to be pleasant in manner when I spoke with him, however, I also found it frustrating to chase for responses and at times not forthcoming with details at all”.

I reach a similar conclusion. Mr Webb is perfectly pleasant but seeks to divert attention from the facts. That is evidenced by the nonsense relating to the sixteen-seat vehicle being treated as an eight-seater due to its MOT, and, at that time, registration as an N2 vehicle at DVLA. It is evidenced by the nonsensical evidence that entirely failed to support his claim that TE Cox had been incompetent in failing to download the tachograph. It is evidenced by the spurious claim that the journey was personal use, a journey undertaken by a paid driver who referred to Mr Webb as his boss. Finally, it is evidenced by his conduct leading to the hearing where he sent my office forty-six separate emails with three hundred and twenty-four separate attachments. It is conduct which is unhelpful and time-consuming. It shows a lack of willingness to comply and be frank with the enforcement and regulatory bodies and that is not appropriate for the holder of a PSV operator’s licence.

The most damaging finding thus far is that Mr Webb lied about the use of the vehicle on 6 July 2024. I have made that finding by a wide margin.

In conducting a balancing exercise, I find in the negative the use of an unlicensed driver, inappropriate vehicle and no tachograph. I find also in the negative the uncooperative, obstructive approach to DVSA and me and I find that falsehood relating to the use of NL71WFG. Finally, I find that he breached the licence undertakings by using the Hummer (I do not make that finding in relation to the party bus as set out above).

There are positives. Compliance is otherwise generally sound. There were no actual drivers’ hours infringements. It was clear from the evidence that Mr Webb had been frustrated trying to get NL71WFG properly registered and tested long before the July 2024 encounter. The vehicle appears to have been fully compliant with the PSV requirements and free from defects. I have found no evidence of licence-lending.

In relation to Mr Caulston as transport manager, I find that he should have been aware of the licence undertakings and ensured they were complied with or removed. I accept that he was completely unaware of the events of 6 July 2024, and I make no other negative findings. I find much in the positive such that I can say now that I make no adverse finding in relation to his good repute.

I refer to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance on proportionality. In relation to Mr Webb, there are sustained negative features. False statements have been made and re-made. There has been a lack of cooperation. I find that this falls in to the “serious” category where I am guided towards revocation or a suspension of up to 28 days. I make no finding of loss of good repute.

In making the decision that I do, I note that Mr Webb told me that a suspension of that length would be the end of his business, but I was provided with no evidence of that. It is an easy claim to make but the Upper Tribunal has previously found that it is for the operator to submit evidence – see for example, 2013/047/Dundee Plant Hire. However, I was not told but I strongly suspect that the operation is seasonal and school prom season is approaching. I do not want the timing of regulatory action to have a disproportionate effect, so I provide a degree of flexibility in the action to be taken.

DECISIONS

Having made serious adverse findings under Section 17(3)(aa), the licence is suspended for a period of 28 days and until an application has been granted for the removal of the undertaking prohibiting the use of limousines or until the operator provides a further clear written statement that limousines will no longer be operated. I make no similar order in relation to party buses for the reasons set out at paragraph 46.

Provided that the second part of the order is complied with, the suspension can be served in any consecutive 28-day period before 31 August 2025

I make no adverse finding in relation to the good repute of Steven Caulston.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

19 May 2025