Decision for Meli Food Service Limited (PK1142268)
Source: gov.uk (2025-02-18)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the South East and Metropolitan are for Meli Food Service Limited and transport manager Riste Kirov

SOUTH EASTERN AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD AT IVY HOUSE, IVY TERRACE, EASTBOURNE ON 27 JANUARY 2025

PK1142268 MELI FOOD SERVICE LIMITED

Decision

Breach of Section 17(3)(aa) Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 found

Licence suspended from 00.01 hours on the 29 March 2025 until 23.59 hours on the 11 April 2025.

Undertakings sought to engage a transport consultant for not less than six months and for an independent audit to be carried out in August 2025 (full details of this undertaking to be set out in the decision letter).

Repute of transport manager Riste Kirov retained but severely tarnished.

Background

Meli Food Service Limited holds a standard international PCV licence granted on the 4 March 2016 authorising two vehicles with two discs in possession. The directors of the company are Toni Kirov and Riste Kirov who is also the designated transport manager.

On the 5 December 2023, the operator was called to a public inquiry due to an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation on 25 August 2023. Failings included using an unauthorised operating centre, PMI issues, absence of compliance systems and the issue of an S marked prohibition. The licence was curtailed to one vehicle for a period of 28 days and the repute of the transport manager Riste Kirov was marked as tarnished.

On 6 July 2024 vehicle WX08 DHM was stopped by DVSA, the driver was Riste Kirov. Mr Kirov did not hold a CPC card and did not have his tachograph card. The tachograph unit was found to be defective. The vehicle was on a journey from Greenford to Bournemouth with passengers on board. Checks found that the vehicle was not specified on the operator licence, having been removed on 30 August 2023. The examiner found no certificate of initial fitness had been issued and the correct PSV test certificate was not in force.

Riste Kirov was interviewed under caution on 11 September 2024. During the interview Mr Kirov stated that the company was not paid for the use of the vehicle on 6 July 2024. He was carrying the passengers as a favour for a friend of his father. When questioned regarding the defective tachograph he stated that he had not used the vehicle for more than a year. He confirmed he did not hold a driver CPC card as he believed his transport manager CPC would allow him to drive. He believed he did not need a COIF as he was not using the vehicle for hire & reward.

A follow-up investigation visit was carried out on 14 October 2024. The examiner highlighted several shortcomings including the absence of driver CPC cards and a system to manage them, no evidence of checking driving licences, and no disciplinary system in relation to driver management.

In light of the background and current issues a decision was taken to call the operator to public inquiry.

The Public Inquiry

Director and transport manager Riste Kirov attended the inquiry and was unrepresented. Traffic Examiner Childs attended remotely via Microsoft Teams.

Mr Kirov confirmed what he said to the DVSA in interview in relation to the encounter on the 6 July 2024. He had been taking some friends of his uncle’s on a trip to Bournemouth using a vehicle that was not authorised on the operator’s licence. The journey was not for “hire or reward”, he was taking the passengers as a favour to his uncle and did not take any payment for doing so. He did not say this when he was spoken to by the DVSA officer because he panicked and was worried because the licence disc was still in the window of the vehicle in error. He still has possession of the vehicle in question but is trying to sell it. It was accepted that the vehicle did not have the correct type of MOT test in force when it was stopped and had not been issued with a COIF before initial use.

Traffic Examiner Childs confirmed the contents of his statement which included reference to the tachograph unit in an authorised vehicle being defective, driver not holding CPC cards, driving licence not being checked quarterly and lack of knowledge of the Working Time Directive. Mr Kirov had promised to send data from the tachograph unit which appeared to be defective but had failed to do so.

A direction had been made prior to the public inquiry that the operator send compliance related documentation to the DVSA and Mr Childs reported on this. He said that download frequencies for the drivers’ cards had been missed by between 52 and 76 days and one of the drivers had not got a CPC card. There was no missing mileage shown in the report supplied and no infringements apart from a working time directive breach.

Mr Kirov said he had forgotten to send the tachograph data to Mr Childs because he had gone on holiday, he could not explain why the download dates had been missed in the more recent documentation, and he had been unaware that drivers’ CPC qualifications were required. All drivers now have CPC cards and were using tachograph cards for all journeys. A new vehicle had been added to the authorisation and a school contract had been obtained.

As Mr Kirov was unrepresented I indicated that prior to making my decision I would allow him a period of 14 days to provide evidence in support of his version of what happened on the 6 July 2024, set out what he was intending to do to achieve full compliance if the licence was allowed to continue and any evidence to better inform me of the consequences of regulatory action short of revocation.

Findings and Decision

The most serious issue in this case is the use of the vehicle on the 6 July 2024 and whether I accept that what Mr Kirov told the DVSA in interview and me at the public inquiry is true. Having heard from him and read the letters in support of what he says, whilst I still have a degree of doubt, I find that it is more likely than not that what he said is true.

Having made this finding it is still the case that there have been significant compliance failings in this case as well as a previous public inquiry and regulatory action. My formal findings are that there have been breaches of Section 17(3) (aa) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

In deciding what action to take I need to balance the negative factors with the positives. The negatives are set out in the preceding paragraphs and underlying these is my concern that Mr Kirov seems to be reactive as opposed to proactive in making changes to achieve compliance. He told me that he responded to the identified maintenance failings following the previous DVSA investigation and now is improving the driver management following this visit. The expectation is that he should have done this before being prompted by the DVSA particularly as he is the qualified transport manager on the licence as well as a director. This attitude carried through to the public inquiry where it was at my instigation that he responded by providing more information.

Having seen the information now provided I am prepared to give the operator a further chance to show that compliance can be achieved and maintained but Mr Kirov should be aware that the licence has come very close to revocation. It is unlikely, in my view, that a further chance will be given in the future.

Mr Kirov has provided evidence to show that a transport consultant will be engaged for at least six months and has said that he will engage drivers on a full time basis in future. He should be aware that if he does so those drivers will need to be employed on a PAYE basis. He has also provided details of the contract he has for school work and the dates when this service is required.

Having considered all these factors I have decided that an appropriate sanction is for the licence to be suspended between 00.01 hours on the 29 March 2025 until 23.59 hours on the 11 April 2025. This is during the school holidays but will mean that the operator will be unable to take on any other work during that period. Any work already booked will need to be sub-contracted to another operator. Mr Kirov’s repute as a transport manager is severely tarnished and I repeat my indication that a further chance is unlikely to be given if another inquiry becomes necessary.

I seek two undertakings first that a transport consultant will be engaged for no less than six months and secondly that an independent audit of the transport operation will be carried out in August 2025 – full requirement of this undertaking to be set out in the decision notice.

John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

9 February 2025