Decision for Kobe Logistics Ltd (OF1132336 & OB2049842)
Source: gov.uk (2025-04-11)

Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Kobe Logistics Ltd and Csaba Andras Gudea, transport manager

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

KOBE LOGISTICS LTD – OF1132336 & OB2049842

AND CSABA ANDRAS GUDEA – TRANSPORT MANAGER

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Background

Kobe Logistics Ltd (known as Wizz Ground Ltd to 30 October 2024) holds Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licences: OF1132336 authorising 35 vehicles and 36 trailers, and OB2049842 authorising 6 vehicles and 6 trailers. The Director is Csaba Andras Gudea, who also acts as the Transport Manager.

There are two Operating Centres on OF1132336: 70-78 Sanders Road, Finedon Industrial Estate, Wellingborough NN8 4NL, and Panther Warehousing, Lodge Way, Lodge Farm Industrial Estate Northampton NN5 7US. There are 5 named contractors on that licence: Ray Goudy Ltd (I was told this was for container trailers), FW Abbott DAF(the main contractor used to date), Allen Wharton Commercials (a mechanic who retired from Pelican, inspects vehicles on OB2049842 and had been found to be reliable but used written record – see below), Brian Currie Daf (going forward will be used for Northampton based inspections), and Pelican Daf, said to be carrying our inspections at 6-weekly intervals. I was told in evidence that the record had recently been varied to report 12-weejkly inspections of trailers.

OF1132336 was granted from 14 October 2014. The operator and both of its then Transport Managers were called to a PI on 21 April 2016 after the operator attracted two S marked Prohibition Notices in 2015. The subsequent maintenance investigation identified issues with inspection frequency, no record of rectification work or brake tests, no facilities for metred brake or head lamp aim checks, no record of wheel security checks, high Prohibition rate. I suspended the licence for a period of 14 days. Mr Gudea lost his repute as Transport Manager. That was only restored on application to my colleague, Mr Denton, in 2017.

A warning letter was issued on 6 July 2021 to the operator and Mr Gudea, as Transport Manager on the basis of driver infringements. A DVSA investigation was carried out following the operator’s application for the additional licence. Vehicle Examiner David Winn attended on 4 March 2022 and noted a Prohibition rate of 21.19% arising from 118 encounters with 13 immediate prohibitions for safety critical items such as tyre below legal limit and brakes. In response to a request for assurances that the operator was fulfilling its responsibilities for third party trailers, it stated that the director liaised with the third party’s Transport Manager to confirm that inspections were undertaken at six weeks. It was suggested that driver checks would be made prior to the driver taking the trailer to the road, with any issues reported and repaired. The operator was provided with link to ensure that all trailers were in annual test before the trailer entered service. Mr Gudea had not been given access to the electronic systems to show maintenance work to any trailer but that was his objective. The operator was reminded of its obligations. A further warning was issued on 10 October 2022 as the operator appeared to have abdicated responsibility in relation to trailers (to the DFDS Logistics Ltd Fleet Manager).

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for 27 March 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. was present in the form of the Director and Transport Manager, Mr Gudea, accompanied by Mr Hinds, transport consultant, and represented by Ms Georgina Power of Rotheras solicitors. An email of 26 March 2025 from Ms Power indicated that the operator had requested the attendance of Mr Hinds as he has recently been engaged as a transport consultant to assist with vehicle management compliance. As below, Mr Hinds will spend at least four hours per week assisting Mr Gudea to audit the vehicle maintenance records. A Ms Gaju is employed as a transport compliance assistant and assists Mr Gudea in his role as transport manager, but she did not attend.

Issues

The public inquiry was called at the request of the operators and following notice (page 135) that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:

• 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements

• 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices

• 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence

• 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs)

• 26(1)(h) – material change in the ability to hold the licence:

• 27(1)(a) repute, financial standing and 27(1)(b) Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.

• 28 – Disqualification.

Mr Gudea was called separately to consider his repute as Transport Manager, as per section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 13 March 2025, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Despite the very late service of documentation, the statements of various accounts did not cover the same periods. Much of the financial evidence was in the former company name Wizz Ground Ltd. Even with all of those statements taken into account, there was a shortfall: REDACTED. As financial standing is not only mandatory but a continuing requirement, this did not assist the operator. I was also referred to a recent loan facility. The current position results from a decision to loan the holding company funds to purchase a site for development into a truck park. On the basis of what was produced, I was persuaded that there was tangible evidence upon which I might allow a Period of Grace to evidence financial standing by reference to a three-month average (see below).

Summary of Evidence

Following receipt of an ‘S’ marked prohibition notice, Vehicle Examiner Adam Pepin commenced an investigation on 24 October 2024. That investigation raised a number of concerns:

• 30 July 2024, vehicle MX65 CEO coupled to trailer C469801 was encountered at Badbury and issued with an immediate roadworthiness prohibition notice due to a deep cut in a tyre with cord(s) exposed on axle 1 offside. No Fixed Penalty was issued, but S marked delayed roadworthiness prohibition issued against MX65 CEO as the engine malfunction light was illuminated indicating a fault (emissions related and had been active for a long period of time). Another delayed prohibition was issued for EBS warning light indicating the existence of a fault, with yellow MIL light illuminated. This defect was due to a radar fault with the adaptive cruise control and was an AEBS light. Trailer C469801 was also issued an S marked delayed roadworthiness prohibition for a defective locking device, insecure on offside axle 2. The brake chamber was replaced, and the yoke lock nut was loose. The engine MIL light illuminated and various warnings on the dash were recorded at the previous Preventative Maintenance Investigation. The trailer was owned by a third party and the operator was found to have no records for any third-party trailer operated under the licence.

• 28 May 2024, vehicle MX65 CEF was encountered at Donnington and issued with two delayed S marked roadworthiness prohibitions for engine malfunction light illuminated indicating a fault and an oil leak from the engine onto road surface dripping in excess of 75mm diameter patch in 5 minutes.

• 19 May 2024, vehicle DA63 MHK was encountered at Thornham and issued with an immediate roadworthiness prohibition for a deep cut in the tyre with cord(s) exposed on axle 2, nearside. No Fixed Penalty was issued.

• 10 June 2022, trailer C452396 was encountered at Badbury and issued with an immediate roadworthiness prohibition for a deep cut in tyre with cord(s) exposed on axle 2 nearside. No Fixed Penalty was issued.

• 13 October 2021, trailer HROM7384 was issued a delayed roadworthiness prohibition for an insecure retaining device on nearside axle 2.

The Examiner suggested that a more robust tyre management system and access to trailer maintenance records might have allowed the operator to avoid these prohibitions.

The Examiner commented that the inspection records broadly met the expectations of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, but that there were minor omissions, for example incorrect inspection manual reference number IM74 on multiple records and missing IM numbers for defects to monitor and recorded at the previous Preventative Maintenance Investigation (on DAF digital records). As recorded above, there were no records kept for third-party trailers used by the operator. Of the 46 inspection records analysed, 46% of records were not compliant. On two of the records for vehicle MX65 CEO, there was no tyre pressures or brake wear measurement recorded. On the Preventative Maintenance Inspection for MX65 CEO dated on 8 August 2023, a defect was not signed as rectified by the repairer. Numerous brake performance tests recorded on the vehicles were conducted using a decelerometer, but no brake temperatures were recorded.

On 4 occasions dangerous defects were recorded as requiring monitoring: MX65 CEO showed 3 consecutive inspections on 20 February, 4 April and 14 May 2024 recorded uneven brake wear and nearside front calliper, but with no rectification. On 3 April and 14 May 24, the offside rear brake disc was recorded as loose with no rectification. On the 12 December 2023, vehicle KY72 GUK was recorded as having an ABS fault to monitor, with no rectification. The Examiner identified a number of processes which were being properly managed but also minor inconsistencies, for example recalls were completed but not recorded on file. The maintenance provider is an Authorised Testing Facility but there were occasional failures due to non-safety-critical defects, with 52 annual test passes recorded on 59 vehicles presented for annual test, giving an initial failure rate of 11.86%.

Of the 46 records analysed, 50% driver related defects were found, with no associated driver defect report. The Examiner referred to evidence of walkaround checks being completed, but also incidents of inspection records showing defects which should have been reported by a driver, without a corresponding driver defect report. There was evidence of regular gate checks being conducted by the Transport Manager and that recorded driver defects were being assessed and repaired. Those checks include wheel security. The Transport Manager also conducted fleet check at weekends, but the log was not seen by the Examiner. It was noted that he had the support of a transport consultant, Trevor Hinds. The Transport Manager was said to be carrying out most of the duties effectively, but some required improvement and all of the shortcomings should have been identified by the Transport Manager, in advance.

I noted the operator’s response of 10 December 2024, querying the use of IM74 beyond exceptional circumstances and emergencies. The operator had contacted FW Abbotts, Kettering, with a response: “IM74 will only be used when there is no categorisation for a specific defect.” It accepted that inspection manual numbers were missing from defects to be monitored. This was attributed to Daf software, FW Abbotts had identified a means of addressing this, going forward. On extended inspection intervals, the operator referred to MX65 CEO and the 66 days from the previous inspection dated the 28 November 2023. It suggested that the vehicle had been dropped off at FW Abbotts on 25 October 2023 to be “evaluated”, with an invoice for 28 November 2023 suggesting major repairs. The vehicle was driven one mile between 26 October and 26 November 2023, suggesting that it should have been marked as off road but was not recorded in this way as it was with the contractor. This will be monitored in future. .

In fact, the inspection manual records that it should be used to identify a defect not described elsewhere in the manual such that the use of the vehicle or trailer on the road would involve an immediate danger of injury to any person. It is not intended that the item should be used as a matter of routine but only for exceptional cases. If a deficiency is recorded under this item, full details must be shown. The operator was advised that it should have undertaken a recorded risk assessment.

FW Abbotts had also alerted the technicians to records for MX65 CEO where no tyre pressure or brake wear measurements were recorded. In respect of the occasions noted on records for MX65 CEO, it was suggested that roller brake tests had been undertaken on 21 February and 14 May 2024 and the vehicle “passed” (not seen at the Public Inquiry) and that uneven brake pad wear could be attributed to several causes. It was accepted that the loose offside rear brake disk was missed from 3 April 20, that being a significant failure, until it was identified on 14 May 2024 and subsequently replaced with both rear disks replaced on 2 June 2024. The vehicle was VOR to that date. However, reference was made to a road test on 3 June 2024 PUT. FW Abbotts has undertaken not to release vehicles without brake defects being rectified and that temperatures are recorded where a decelerometer has been employed most recently. Reference is made to the recent change in the Guide. The Transport Manager suggested he would be more proactive.

On the inspection dated 12 December 2023, where KY72 GUK was recorded to have an ABS fault, the operator referred to a full Daf R&M contract. FW Abbotts have suggested that this type of fault will not be recorded to “monitor” going forward. It was suggested that Vehicles are dropped off 5 days prior to the annual test date, older vehicles even earlier. Even though they check everything on the same test lane, a large percentage of initial fails have to do with headlamp aim. Again, the Transport Manager will exercise closer scrutiny. A report was to be created recording all the safety recalls, to be attached to the vehicle file and then checked against Gov.uk.

The operator suggested that driver defect sheets were available but not analysed. I noted the translations at page 164 and was informed that different languages are available through the app The tyre contractor, Tyres Northampton Commercial, had been instructed to carry out a monthly fleet check of tread depth, condition of tyres and any service work.

The operator’s correspondence acknowledged that a robust tyre management policy and access to the electronic trailer maintenance system would have prevented the cause of the prohibitions recorded in the report. I could not agree more. The operator described the approach with its maintenance provider that any defects are not “carried over” without categorisation and has now addressed the use of IM74. It was suggested that the operator has on-line access to trailer Preventative Maintenance Inspection records and “key dates”, which are checked randomly. The operator can log into Hireco and Zenith’s on-line portals from which he had obtained information about trailer C469801.

I referred to Mr Pepin’s update of 19 March 2025, based on the documentation supplied through the operator’s representative. Mr Pepin reported that the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for PN19 HDO, MX65 CEO, YK72 JWW and YN19 WMW from OF1132336, and YK68 ODK from the OB2049842 were mostly electronic reports, with two paper records from external providers. No records were received for YK14 ZDG, which was recorded as VOR from August 2024 to December 2024. He made the following observations:

• on all records, there is no signature against the defects to monitor. Some of those defects were recorded again on the next inspection.

• on the two paper records, there was no name and address of the operator recorded, and no tyre pressures recorded.

• the Preventative Maintenance Inspection record dated 2 November 2024 for MX65 CEO recorded a braking defect as the offside rear brake disc was not fitted to the hub. The roller brake performance test is recorded as a failure, showing an imbalance of 94% on service brake and 91% on the parking brake on the rear axle. This defect was recorded as ‘inform customer’. The vehicle was signed off as being roadworthy by the foreman/service manager. The defect was rectified by the operator with no record of a second brake performance test provided. The vehicle appeared to have been driven back to the Operating Centre in Wellingborough (odometer reading on the Preventative Maintenance Inspection: 508799km versus the job card: 508815km).

• the brake performance tests suggest a mixture of roller brake and decelerometer tests which are laden or unladen. The Examiner remarked that decelerometer brake tests are only recommended for rigid vehicles and not articulated. On four occasions when a decelerometer test was recorded, no brake temperatures were recorded, despite the clear instruction in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. I repeated my observations regarding the need to record any risk assessment.

• the operator provided a revised forward planner (wall chart) including inspection dates, annual test, and tachograph calibration dates for six months in advance. Completed items are then checked off.

• the Examiner found the wheel re-torque and periodic torque records to be satisfactory and much improved from the initial visit.

• Driver defect reports received also appeared to be completed correctly and countersigned, where required. This was described as much improved, but auditing must continue.

In addition, the operator lodged in excess of 750 pages in the week before the hearing. The index suggested that the first 500 pages were monthly driving licence checks. There was approximately 100 pages of infringement reports, but only 4 pages covering driver disciplinary processes. There was a further 50 pages covering missing mileage reports. Using the page numbering in the bundle, from the data covering the past 3 months:

• pages 527-528, Driver Ion, 3 short daily rests in a row, drive time on 19 December, 49 minutes over the 10-hour limit, but the Transport Manager review does not reflect this.

• pages 554-555, same driver 3 short daily rests in a row.

• pages 531 – 532, Driver Fieraru – drive time of 10 hours and 30 minutes, no explanation noted when it was discussed with the Transport Manager.

• WTD infringements appeared regularly with numerous 4.5-hour drive time with breaks taken late by less than 10 minutes but no explanation.

• pages 549-550, Driver Stephens – drove 5 hours and 8 minutes without a break but no explanation noted when it was discussed with the Transport Manager.

• pages 561-562, same driver – insufficient daily rest, daily drive time exceeded

• pages 563-577, same driver – multiple examples of daily, weekly work limits exceeded but no explanation noted.

• pages 557-558, Driver Stan – compensation for short weekly rest missed, but no explanation noted.

• pages 578-582, Driver Badila – more short rest periods or drive times exceeded including the 90-hour fortnightly drive time (92 hours and 11 minutes).

• pages 592-597, Driver Popa – multiple examples of exceeding the 4.5-hour drive time limit by up to 25 minutes.

• pages 618-621, Driver Dascalescu – daily drive time exceeded by 65 minutes – 11 hours 5 minutes total plus a 22-hour day but no explanation noted.

The missing mileage records suggest that the tachograph in vehicle YX68 ODK did not record a driver card present for the period 16 – 29 November 2024, covering approximately 3500 missing km. There was no explanation of what the fault was or if the head unit was replaced etc. For vehicle KU70 XOH, it records that from 23 February to 1 March, with missing 2187 km: “driver in scope but didn’t get to yard to download his card” I was advised that the deadline for submissions to the tribunal had led to this situation, which I accepted. There were also numerous examples of relying of the excuse that the “driver was being assessed and his card was not read after the assessment, he failed and was not hired”. I was not impressed by this explanation or the failure to download cards immediately afterwards. I was assured that this would be recorded in future.

On driver discipline, Driver Stephens received a final written warning on 2 December 2024 for tachograph issues and a 1-week suspension but then received another final written warning for the same in February 2025. Pages 635-654 disclosed several other disciplinary letters issued to drivers. The checks of driver defect reporting failed to identify a single-issue during January to February 2025, which appeared unlikely given the above.

In a statement dated only one day before the Public Inquiry, the Director, Mr Gudea confirms the licence details with 32 vehicles currently in possession on OF1132336 and 3 on OB2049842. I read that the operator is engaged in general haulage and intermodal transport, with the majority of the work being carried out for AIT, collecting returned white goods, and DFDS Logistics, collecting trailers from Immingham and Felixstowe docks.

Mr Gudea acknowledged the “chequered history” and the previous Public Inquiry proceedings in 2016 and referred to the work undertaken since those proceedings. The operator is a member of Logistics UK, which provides him with updates against which to improve compliance. He further updated is knowledge by attending a two-day Transport Manager refresher course in September 2024. Where shortcomings have been identified, he acted swiftly to address the issue and put the necessary systems in place to try and prevent future occurrences. He referred to the stop of MX65 CEO and trailer C469801 on 30 July 2024 leading to the two S marked delayed roadworthiness Prohibition Notices, an immediate prohibition and a delayed prohibition. He also referred to the DVSA assessment of his performance as Transport Manager, being “mostly satisfactory” but due to the prohibition assessment, the result was “report to OTC” which was a very disappointing outcome. He added to the written response, summarised above, by acknowledging a historic issue with defective tyres and the condition of the road leading to a delivery point and yard at AIT in Northampton. He described deep potholes in the roadway and yard, a number of metal screws and fixings on the ground. This had been raised with AIT on 9 September 2024 and the yard is now much improved. The shunter vehicle has been fitted with a magnetic bar to collect those stray bolts and screws. Mr Gudea also instructed Tyres Northampton LLP to carry out monthly tyre checks from December 2024, which has increased to fortnightly from this month.

Mr Gudea accepted full responsibility for the unsatisfactory state of inspection and maintenance records. He had undertaken frequent meetings and telephone calls with FW Abbott and noticed an improvement in recent months. He confirmed that third-party trailer records were limited to a driver walkaround check and random examination of the records maintained by Hireco and Zenith and made available through an online portal. He has only now gained access via a Google Drive to the maintenance planners relating to the trailers. He circulates a weekly list to his drivers of the trailers which are either due for inspection or annual test, so that they are not operated without his knowledge. When alerted, he can access the maintenance record for the trailer in question to ascertain whether the inspection has been carried out and ensure that any defects have been rectified. Trevor Hinds of TWH Services, a former DVSA Examiner will assist him in auditing the records. He will attend in Wellingborough for at least four hours per week on either a Monday or a Tuesday. He will act as a “second pair of eyes” to Mr Gudea.

Mr Gudea is assisted by a full-tine transport manager, Mariana Gaju, who books vehicles for inspection, annual test and tachograph calibration, files driver defect reports in the relevant vehicle file after his review, checks insurance, and completes monthly driving licence checks, which he oversees. She does not have any direct engagement with drivers, or infringements but completed a Tachomaster course in September 2021.

In response to Mr Pepin’s update, he refers to FW Abbotts undertaking 95% of our inspections. If they identify a defect, he has authorised rectification of any repairs costing up to £400, beyond which they must seek authority. In those cases, any safety related defects will be rectified or the vehicle taken out of service. However, FW Abbots do not have capacity to complete the repairs over the weekend, and so the vehicle would be bought back and repaired at the in-house workshop so that the vehicle can be put back into service on a Monday. “Monitor” denotes a non-safety related defect and which is serviceable. Mr Gudea will take a view on when it should be rectified. All of the examples given also helped to illustrate where far more information is required to be endorsed on the inspection records that has been appearing on the electronic versions to date. If defects are to be left, there needs to be a detailed record of the reasons for what makes the vehicle or trailer serviceable. A job card will be raised and “generally” the defect will be repaired before the next inspection. He blamed the software used by FW Abbotts for the records or recurring defects but has now employed an additional section on the inspection form: “The following defects, reported on a prior inspection, have been checked and have been rectified prior to this inspection and no longer require monitoring”.

In respect of MX65 CEO, I was told that an inspection was completed by FW Abbots on 2 November (a Saturday). The service manager, Mr Ridgway, telephoned him and advised that the brake disc on the offside rear was cracked and that it was not connected to the hub. He advised Mr Ridgway that the operator would carry out the repair and replace the whole hub. He drove the vehicle for six miles back to the Operating Centre in Wellingborough for repair. He described this as an error of judgement as the vehicle was not roadworthy. He would not make that decision again. The inspection was signed off as roadworthy by Mr Ridgway but dated 12 November 2024. Mr Gudea did not receive the inspection record immediately but was verbally informed verbally of the defects and notified Mr Ridgway of the repairs on 10 and 11 November so that he could then sign the inspection and send the completed form. This was a serious error of judgement on the part of all those involved. There can be no doubt from his appearance at the Public Inquiry of the need for a further meaningful brake performance test instead of his road test, but that repairs should not be signed off by a contractor which has not inspected the work.

In evidence Mr Gudea outlined the number of staff employed and in different positions, including one mechanic in an on-site workshop with column lifts, compressor, toque wrench. I was also told about the spare vehicles which are maintained to support operations. In-house repairs do not now include brake defects (see above). As suggested above, driver defect reporting relies on the Truckfile app, but defects are reported in a separate report, although immediate communication may be via WhatsApp when remote. Mr Gudea pays extra to retain those records. The reports are made via Mr Gudea so that he can check they are signed-off Trailer defects are only reported via the app, but he can access the records kept by the third parties and the trailer is automatically put off-road. He will also inform the trailer providers. Driver defect reporting is supported by periodic toolbox talks and his own channel of You-tube videos. Mr Gudea referred to constant monitoring with additional checks by Mr Hinds. Any issues identified from the Preventative Maintenance Inspections are endorsed by Mr Gudea and then scanned across. He again accepted the need to ensure that there is a recorded risk assessment at appropriate times.

Mr Gudea had used the opportunity to consult the guidance on maintaining third-party trailers and referred to the IRTE guide. He had utilised the annexes and the standard letter to communicate with the providers to varying effect. It was recognised that he requires access to inspection and annual test records. The more frequent change of trailers occurs for GB based owners. 90% of the operator’s work allows access to those records, to the credit of AIT and DFDS. This has proven more difficult with trailers brought in from other countries and picked up from the ports, for example under contracts with P&O Ferrymasters and De Rijke. I am aware that fellow regulators in European Member States access traffic commissioner decisions, notably colleagues at NIWO. I reminded the operator of the content of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness:

• Where third-party trailers are not on the same safety inspection frequency as the operator’s trailers then as a default position the inspection frequency should not exceed 13 weeks.

• To prevent the third-party trailer being used in an unroadworthy condition there must be a robust system or process in place to ensure defects identified during the walkaround check or developed during use are recorded and rectified.

• A process must be in place to ensure non-UK registered third-party trailers are maintained in a roadworthy condition before being used.

• Where possible an operator towing a non-UK third party trailer should ensure it has a current roadworthiness certificate (MOT). This can often be found with the trailer documentation or see next bullet point.

• The European Commission has more information on roadworthiness certificates (RWC) and proof of test (POT) for EU member states.

• A drivers walkaround check is carried and any identified defects are rectified before the trailer is used.

• Where an operator maintains control of a non-UK trailer for longer than 13 weeks, a process should be in place to ensure a safety inspection is carried out in-line with the operator’s stated trailer frequency.

• Where an operator or transport manager cannot satisfy themselves that the trailer is adequately maintained the trailer must not be used.

The operator is aware that he needs to be satisfied that trailer brakes will work when operated under this licence.

Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings in respect of the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs), 26(1)(h) – material change in the ability to hold the licence: 27(1)(a) financial standing. As indicated above, I allowed a Period of Grace of 4 months from the date of the Public Inquiry to show financial standing by reference to an up-to-date average over a 3-month period and in the name of the operator.

Mr Gudea acknowledged that his compliance systems were flawed. I would extend that to poor judgement and a lack of obvious knowledge. I was asked to accept his commitment to his role as Transport Manager and Director and understands that he must exercise continuous and effective management, even though that was not evident in the circumstances described by Mr Pepin. He referred to an improving picture, but the changes have been recent.

I nevertheless accepted the submissions from Ms Power based on the Tribunal decision in 2013/082 Arnold Transport: It is also important for operators to understand… the old saying that: “actions speak louder than words”, (see paragraph 2(xxix) above). We agree that this is a helpful and appropriate approach. The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry. It will be for the Head of the TRU to assess the position on the facts of each individual case. However, it seems clear that prompt and effective action is likely to be given greater weight than untested promises to put matters right in the future. She suggested that the case lay within a starting point of MODERATE to SERIOUS, as per Statutory Document No. 10.

It was suggested that there had been full cooperation from the operator, there was no direct commercial advantage gained, that additional control measures such as gate-checks had resulted, that the operator had identified the issues and continued to press the point with third-party trailer owners (following the IRTE guidance) with some effect. Following the last intervention, Mr Gudea had actively sought out Mr Hinds, who had identified the issues in his previous role, to obtain advice on how to secure future compliance. Mr Pepin suggested that a more robust tyre management system and access to trailer maintenance records might have allowed the operator to avoid these prohibitions. I would extend that to include more robust management of drivers, particularly where the operation involves third-party trailers.

In completing the balancing exercise, I was offered and accepted the following additional undertaking from the operator:

• Mr Hinds to be retained as a transport consultant for the next 12 months spending at least four hours per week assisting Mr Gudea to audit the vehicle maintenance records (including third-party trailers) and advising on operator licence compliance.

• Laden roller brake checks of vehicles at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection per as per the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, to include all trailers from 27 June 2025.

• To engage an independent body (i.e. not an existing consultant) to carry out an audit of all licence compliance systems. The audit will assess the operator against the standards published under the DVSA earned recognition scheme: www.gov.uk/government/publications/dvsa-earned-recognition-vehicle-operator-standards A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge within 6 months of the date of the Public Inquiry. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits

As The Upper Tribunal confirmed in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage: “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the appellant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”. In this case I determined that such deterrent intervention was required to encourage the operator to future compliance. I therefore curtailed OF1132336 by two vehicles and OB2049842 by two vehicles from 23:45 on 27 March 2025. I issued a warning to Mr Gudea that his repute and that of the operator had been tarnished by these events but not lost.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

28 March 2025