Decision for Richard John Hough T/A Hough's of Lincolnshire (PB1060361)
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-27)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North East for Richard John Hough T/A Hough's of Lincolnshire, Rosina Elizabeth Hough as Transport Manager and Amy Kate Wicks as Transport Manager

IN THE NORTHEAST TRAFFIC AREA

Richard John Hough T/A Hough’s of Lincolnshire – PB1060361

AND Rosina Elizabeth Hough – TRANSPORT MANAGER

AND Amy Kate Wicks – TRANSPORT MANAGER

WRITTEN REASONS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN LEEDS ON 11 NOVEMBER 2025

DECISION:

The Operator’s licence is revoked as of 23:45 on the 28 November 2025.

All licence discs must be returned to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, Leeds no later than by 4pm 5 December 2025.

Mr Hough, having failed to attend the public inquiry, will be written to so that he has the opportunity to address me in writing on whether or not he should be disqualified from holding another operator’s licence, and from being a director of any company which holds such a licence. I will allow him until 4pm 21st November 2025.

Mrs Hough has lost her good repute as a Transport Manager.

Mrs Hough is indefinitely disqualified as a Transport Manager.

Mrs Hough will be expected to complete her Transport Manager CPC again should she wish to return to the industry as a Transport Manager.

In relation to Mrs Wicks there is no further action.

Background:

The operator holds a Standard International Public Service Vehicle Licence. The licence was held from 31 July 2006. The authorisation is for seven vehicles, four are currently in possession of the operator.

Mr Hough is a sole trader and the sole owner operator.

Mrs Hough is the sole transport manager. She gained her CPCSI on 27/03/2014 and has been the nominated Transport Manager on the licence since 17/06/2014. Mrs Hough is the wife of Mr Hough.

Mrs Wicks is the former Transport Manager on this licence. She gained her CPCSI on 18/04/2019 and was the nominated Transport Manager on this licence from 14/05/2019 until she was removed on 31/10/2022.

The Call to Public Inquiry

Case called under Section 17 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985.

One of the company’s vehicles, YN69XVK was issued with a delayed prohibition for anti-lock brake warning light sequence indicates a fault, ABS inoperative vehicle/trailer has load sensing valve, ABS light on during a roadside inspection at Sheffield Arena, Terry Street, Sheffield on 27/01/2025.

An unannounced follow-up Maintenance Investigation Report (MIVR) was conducted by Vehicle Examiner (VE) Mark Roystone on 13/02/2025 which was marked Report to OTC for the following shortcomings:
- Inspection facilities & maintenance arrangements:
- Combination of in-house inspections and Scania Grimsby
- Routine PMI work carried out in-house. No evidence of brake performance testing when records reviewed. Lifters are available for underside inspection: Facilities, as set out in-line with GTMR (Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness) Section 5.1 must be available or arrangements in-place and records must be retained.
- There is no out-sourced brake performance testing records or headlight beam testing in-line with GTMR.
- Annual test performance 3x higher than PSV national average at 22% initial fail verses 6.7% national average. YN69XVK failed its presentation for PG9 clearance on 14/02/2025 after clear instruction from myself to ensure the coach is fully prepared i.e. full underside inspection, steam clean and brake tested. The coach was presented to ATF P50658 Scania Grimsby without an underside inspection or any preparation work, confirmed by the Operator (Rosina Hough) due to lack of time.
Prohibition Assessment:

The delayed prohibition issued to vehicle YN69XVK had not been cleared. An immediate prohibition variation was issued to vehicle YN69XVK on 13/02/2025 for:
- IM5 RTE / VT variation - original prohibition 10 days old or more The Prohibition Which This Document Varies, Is Still in Force YN69XVK was submitted to IPG9 removal at ATF P50658 Scania Grimsby on 14/02/2025.
A further S marked PG9 refusal / variation was issued and came into force on 14/02/2025 for the following defect:
- Excessive Movement in Steering Joint, and Joint in danger of separation, nearside axle
An immediate prohibition was issued to vehicle YT11LVB on 13/02/2025 for the defect below:
- IM46 Exhaust Systems and nuisance Exhaust System Leaking, Fumes Likely to Enter Interior, Danger to Occupants Health, End: REAR.
The prohibition was cleared at site same day at 12.57 upon rectification of the insecure and leaking exhaust. The operator was advised to complete a full and proper repair, replacing the defective exhaust component in its entirety. Having reviewed the inspection records and the inspection dated 18/02/2025, there is no evidence this has been completed in-line with the advice given.

Transport Manager/Responsible Person Assessment:

Mrs Hough has stated that the Transport Manager is Mrs Wicks who is not currently named as Transport Manager on this licence. It was stated by Mrs Hough that Mrs Wicks, unknowingly to Mrs Hough, removed herself from the license and reinstated Mrs Hough, who had retired twelve months previously.

Transport Manager Mrs Hough has not completed any relevant continual professional development in the last five years.

There are a number of controls throughout, absent and missing; in particular inspection sheet compliance / maintenance monitoring and defect reporting management.

The following areas were marked unsatisfactory:
- Condition of vehicles examined at this fleet check
- Inspection/Maintenance Records.
- Driver Defect Reporting
- Vehicle Emissions
- Wheel & Tyre Management
All other areas of the MIVR were marked satisfactory. The operator provided a comprehensive response however, Vehicle Examiner Roystone marked the response as unsatisfactory.

On 19/03/2025 a Traffic Examiner Report (TEVR) was conducted by Traffic Examiner (TE) Tim Shaw. This was marked report to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for the following reasons because more than 11 points were scored. This TEVR scored 15 points. The scoring system is two points are given when a mandatory requirement is not met/no system/procedure in place, or if in place, clearly not working. One point is given if there is some system/procedure in place but not working entirely satisfactorily.
- 1 point - Does the transport manager / responsible person have the required levels of management control?
- 2 points - Does the transport manager / responsible person demonstrate relevant continuous professional development?
- 1 point – Is driver training appropriate to the business (inc. ADR) provided ?
- 1 point – Is an effective system being used to monitor driver CPC?
- 1 point - Are driving licenses checked quarterly?
- 1 point - Are analogue charts/printer rolls properly issued, returned and stored (are digital printouts stored effectively)?
- 1 point - Is digital download frequency satisfactory?
- 1 point - Is there an effective system for checking of records and downloaded data in place?
- 1 point - Are effective disciplinary procedures in place & evidence of use?
- 2 points - Is there an effective system for managing working time?
- 1 point - Is there an effective system for managing vehicle tests, insurance and excise?
- 2 points - Is there an effective system for managing tachograph and speed limiter functionality and calibration?
TE Shaw’s examiner feedback was “The systems required do not appear to be in place. In context there was up until very recently a TM in place, Amy Wicks. The company had taken her on in 2023 to help carry out the work. She was placed as TM in 2024 as Mrs Hough retired. She has now since VE visit come back on as TM, however she says that Wicks removed herself from the licence and placed Mrs Hough back on. The lack of basic systems causes concern”

In the last 5 years this operator had 10 roadworthiness encounters with 3 immediate prohibitions, 2 delayed prohibitions, 5 mechanical prohibitions and 2 ‘S’ marked prohibitions being issued. Their mechanical prohibition rate is 50.00% against the national average of 18.34%. They had 11 traffic encounters during this period with no prohibitions issued.

In the same period, they presented 20 vehicles for test with 13 passes, 2 PRS, 7 initial fails and 5 final fails. Their initial fail rate is 35.00% against the national average of 10.23% and their final fail rate is 25.00% against the national average of 6.92%.

The reasons given for failure were steering, lamps, brake systems & components, service brake performance, secondary brake performance, suspension and aim of headlamps.

Evidence was requested from the Operator for both DVSA examiners to review to compile a pre public inquiry report. No evidence was provided to either expert.

No evidence at all was provided by the Operator including zero evidence of financial standing.

Mrs Hough has provided no evidence before the public inquiry.

Mrs Wicks has provided a written statement.

The Public Inquiry

The public inquiry took place on the 11 November 2025.

Mr Hough did not attend.

Mrs Hough attended, self-represented. It was confirmed that Mrs Hough is not an owner of the business and she has no authority to speak on behalf of Mr Hough nor the Operator.

Mrs Wicks did not attend.

Preliminary issues

Adjournment request one – further evidence sought.

An adjournment application was made via an undated letter logged on the VOL system on the 5 November 2025. The letter from Mrs Hough. It explained REDACTED
- The Operator and Mrs Hough were contacted via letter on the 6 November 2025 to request medical evidence and/or to seek whether reasonable adjustments could assist.
- As no response was received the Office of the Traffic Commissioner team got in touch with Mrs Hough to chase this up.
Adjournment request two – refused.

On the 10 November 2026 Hearing Centre Staff spoke to Mrs Hough on the telephone. A summary of the conversation and follow up email was:
- Mrs Hough had not seen the letter requesting REDACTED and would try to get the information requested.
- REDACTED
- They are in the process of having another company absorb their business and want the licence to continue to prevent job losses until this completes, hopefully in a months’ time. Mrs Hough confirmed that she cannot attend a case management hearing REDACTED
- Mrs Hough sent what appeared to be a blank form REDACTED
- The email states that neither Mr or Mrs Hough can attend the inquiry due to REDACTED.
- Mrs Hough also stated that a third party may be taking over the business and Mrs Hough requests that they been given time to complete negotiations to prevent job losses. No evidence was provided in support of these negotiations.
The adjournment request was refused in writing. A summary of the reasons were:
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- There is a concern that the adjournment is being sought to allow time for the business to be sold to someone else. For the public inquiry process to pause for the business to be sold is inappropriate and not in line with the regulatory objectives of road safety and fair competition;
- This operator has not paused trading. There are road safety critical issues to address. There is no evidence that matters have improved. This is an operator whose Safety Inspection Period Calculator and Analysis Tool (SIPCAT) table sets out 93% of safety inspections not being fully compliant, 17% of reports with dangerous defects found and 90% of safety inspections without a brake test. There are issues of direct road safety concerns;
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- It would be an affront to the regulatory process if parties were able to simply cite REDACTED or wishing to sell a business as reason[s] to adjourn and then an adjournment would follow without more. If this was tolerated by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner road safety would be highly likely to suffer and there would be a disincentive for compliant operators to spend the time and money necessary to maintain safety and compliance standards;
- All parties were both given the opportunity to attend the hearing remotely as an exercise in parallel planning.
Adjournment request three – abandoned.

As these reasons were about to be sent, Mrs Hough spoke to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner staff again on the telephone. She “said REDACTED. This was the first time this was raised and it was unevidenced. I indicated I would look at the evidence which I anticipated to be REDACTED
- This point was never evidenced;
- Mrs Hough said she REDACTED instead intended to attend the hearing remotely. REDACTED
REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

Service and proceeding in absence

Mr Hough and the Operator have been served the papers appropriately. When deciding whether to proceed without Mr Hough, I had regard to:
- The regulatory objectives of road safety and fair competition. I adopted the reasoning from the earlier adjournment request to assess that there appear to be critical road safety concerns for this licence. I am concerned that if this case is not heard with some expedience there is a real risk that road users will continue to be put at a direct road safety risk. The evidence presently suggests that dangerous defects are not being identified by drivers and that brake tests are consistently non-compliant;
- The reasons for absence are not clear. REDACTED
- REDACTED
- There is no suggestion that Mr Hough wishes to seek legal representation;
- There is a serious disadvantage to Mr Hough failing to attend the public inquiry;
- There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable period of time. The fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of hearings is of very real importance;
- It is unfair to compliant operators if those called to public inquiry can avoid scrutiny of their compliance simply by failing to attend. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner has no powers to compel anyone to attend unlike a criminal court can.
On the evidence before me I have concluded that Mr Hough has voluntarily absented himself.

I decided that it would be fair and appropriate to proceed without Mr Hough. Ultimately, I do not think he is anymore likely to attend at another time. The case before me is potentially a serious one and any delay would be contrary to the regulatory objectives to a material degree especially road safety.

Mrs Wicks has been served the papers appropriately. Mrs Wicks is aware of the hearing date but has chosen to voluntarily absent herself. Mrs Wicks has communicated that she cannot take time off work to attend the hearing. She has refused the offer of remote attendance. I must note that Mrs Wicks is not listed on the licence as a Transport Manager at the date of public inquiry. I am content that it is fair and appropriate to proceed in Mrs Wicks absence.

The Evidence

Operator

There was no further evidence to consider for the Operator.

VOL

A Transport Manager Timeline was created by Office of the Traffic Commissioner staff to evidence VOL records. VOL is the electronic system used by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to record Operator licensing records including those of both operators and transport managers. The documentary record from the VOL system shows that Mrs Wicks was removed as transport manager digitally from the VOL system by Mr Hough or someone using his VOL account log in details on the 31 October 2022. This left Mrs Hough as the sole TM from the 31 October 2022 to date, Mrs Hough having been on the licence as Transport Manager continuously since 2014.

Mrs Wicks

In brief summary, Mrs Wicks accepts that she was the Transport Manager for this Operator from May 2019 to January 2022.

Mrs Wicks accepts returning to employment with the Operator in August 2023 in an office management and administrative capacity. She specifically denies being a transport manger during this period.

Mrs Wicks stated “Any activity – adding or removing names – on the national register is detectable and can be traced. The addition and removal of names is tracked and recorded. Mrs Hough’s allegation is insupportable and I do not believe it should be allowed to stand as evidence”

Mrs Wicks said “Mrs. Hough continued to be engaged fully in the day to day operations of the company, including transport management.”

Mrs Wicks provided three text messages that she had transcribed herself dated 11 December 2024, 17 January 2025 and 27 January 2025.

Mrs Wicks said she left the Operator without notice due to the severity of her concerns about the way the business was being run. Mrs Wicks wrote about a poor company culture and placed the blame for this at the door of Mr and Mrs Hough.

Mrs Hough

Mrs Hough said that Mrs Wicks did not have a contract of employment as it was Mrs Wicks responsibility to draft it and she must not have done so. Mrs Hough blamed Mrs Wicks for not removing Mrs Hough’s name as a transport manager on the licence.

Mrs Hough also gave evidence about a fundamentally poor company culture. She blamed the staff, including Mrs Wicks for falling to do their work down including refusing to take money and erroneously telling customers that the business was in receivership.

Mrs Hough said that she had totally retired in January 2024. She denied that she had semi-retired or reduced her hours. She accepted that she would have made contact with Mrs Wicks about work but was doing so in an advisory capacity only.

REDACTED

Mrs Hough said that she had not sought to be replaced as transport manager by anyone else as the business was in negotiations and she did not trust anyone else.

Mrs Hough said that she had not been involved with providing any updated evidence to the DVSA for this hearing and she thought she had probably missed the emails.

Initially Mrs Hough said that she had taken back over as Transport Manager in February 2025 and that the things that were wrong had been put right.

Later, Mrs Hough agreed that she was “not fully” in continuous and effective management of the transport activities.

Mrs Hough told me that someone brings physical safety inspection records to her once a month and she will sit down and look at them to marry them up with the defect reports. Brakes are part and parcel of the safety inspections so she will look at those at the same time.

Mrs Hough said that she had considered looking for a refresher course but then the business negotiations started.

Findings of fact and conclusions on the evidence.

When making any findings I have applied the civil standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities. I understand that the burden of proof is on me throughout.

Mrs Hough

It is more likely than not that Mrs Hough was the transport manager from 25 June 2014 until the date of the public inquiry. It is likely that both Mrs Hough and Mrs Wicks were transport manages at the same time between 22 May 2019 and 31 October 2022. This reflects the entries on the VOL system.

VOL account log in details are personal to directors of operators. They are not to be shared with transport managers who have their own log in details assigned to them.

The objective evidence before me does not support Mrs Wicks being a transport manager on this licence from 1 November 2022 for this operator ever again. Whether or not Mrs Wicks assisted Mrs Hough with vehicle maintenance arrangements or compliance issues at a later date does not release Mrs Hough of her responsibilities as the sole named transport manager on the licence.

Between 22/5/2019-31/10/2022 Mrs Wicks was also a transport manager on the licence. On Mrs Wick’s TM1 form she was described as “Assistant Transport Manager”. The form was signed by Mrs Wicks and Mr Hough on the 14 May 2019. I have seen no objective evidence that Mrs Wicks was ever a sole transport manager for this operator.

It is likely that Mrs Wicks was not engaged as a transport manager without a contract in 2023 or 2024 at all. The suggestion that there is no contract of employment as Mrs Wicks was expected to draft it herself but failed to do so is implausible.

I reject Mrs Hough’s argument that Mrs Wicks should have removed her name from the VOL system to reflect that Mrs Wicks was the sole transport manager for a period in 2023 into 2024. If Mrs Hough intended to be removed from the licence as a transport manager that was her own responsibility, including checking that it was done correctly. It is more likely on the evidence that I have assessed that Mrs Hough was the Transport Manager from 2024 to date as objectively evidenced on the VOL system.

Mrs Hough has been inconsistent about when she states she left to role of transport manager. She told the DVSA in a written response dated 26 March 2025

“I have been retired from the transport manager position since January 2024 when both myself and my husband Richard Hough stood down from operating roles and employed staff to do the day to day running due to REDACTED including Transport Manager. I paid for Amy Wicks to complete her Transport Manager CPC when she had worked for us before COVID and she returned to the position following a break in employment with us in 2023 in the lead up to her taking over and my retirement.

Upon my retirement I feel sufficient processes were in place to satisfy your concerns which may have been neglected in my absence.”

Transport Managers are expected to be open, transport and honest. I do not accept this statement as credible and truthful evidence from Mrs Hough. The enhanced evidence behind the SIPCAT table set out an example when the next safety inspection was due 15 November 2023. That safety inspection was missed by 26 days for a vehicle not recorded as off road. That record and a previous one (date of actual safety inspections 28 September 2023 and 4 October 2023) had “none” recorded under the DVSA question, what braking performance assessment was carried out? In all three instances the comment of the DVSA examiner was the same “No brake performance test carried out in accordance with GTMR 5.3. No road-worthiness sign-off. No recorded tyre pressure.”

The clear picture is that maintenance and compliance standards have been poor for a long time and I have no objective evidence that they have improved aside from the oral assurances of Mrs Hough which I have been able to place no weight on due to my assessment of her lacking material knowledge, skill and motivation to continuously and effectively manage the transport activities of the operator as well as the history of non-compliance under her watch.

Mrs Hough’s evidence about a driver (Shaun) speaking to her or Mr Hough for them to pass a message onto Mrs Wicks was implausible. If Mrs Hough was not a transport manager then there would be no reason to involve her when doing so could only contribute in a poorer system of communication. If Ms Wicks had been the transport manager I would have expected Mr Hough and/or the drivers to speak to Mrs Wicks directly.

I placed less weight on the text message transcripts due to the way they were prepared and as Mrs Wicks did not attend to allow for further scrutiny of the content. Mrs Hough was told before we discussed them I did not have full transcripts nor context for the messages. However, Mrs Hough agreed that she had sent the messages and went on to provide evidence which was inconsistent with her primary position that she had fully retired. Mrs Hough said she was an unpaid adviser.

Mrs Hough originally told the DVSA that “I am unsure the reason as to why Amy Wicks (TM220360) removed herself as transport manager or when. I was not made aware of myself being placed back on our license as transport manager. I have found an internet history log of the page being accessed in February 2025 which I have included as a guide as to when this may have happened although I am aware this may not form any kind of evidence.”. Mrs Hough abandoned the portion of this statement referring to an internet history log form February 2025 at the public inquiry.

The VOL evidence does not support Mrs Wicks removing herself from the licence. Further the evidence from VOL would suggest that the VOL account of Mr Hough removed Mrs Wicks from the licence on 31 October 2022. There is no evidence that Mrs Hough was put back onto the licence by Mrs Wicks or anyone else, she was on the licence throughout since 2014.

I have found Mrs Hough to lack credibility at the public inquiry. I do not accept that she has told the whole truth before me today. Her evidence on her involvement with the Operator has been inconsistent and at times implausible.

The nature of what Mrs Hough has said to the DVSA and at the public inquiry about whether or not she was the transport manager from January 2024 to February 2025 cannot be a mistake especially in so far as she sought to blame Mrs Wicks. I have found her evidence to be dishonest. I find it more likely than not that Mrs Hough knew that she remained on the licence as transport manager. I find it likely that she wished to reduce her involvement with the operator to work towards retirement and that she sought to delegate her duties for doing that work that would be expected of a competent transport manager to others including the maintenance providers. Other aspects of compliance simply fell through the cracks and were omitted entirely.

I find as a fact that Mrs Hough has deliberately and inaccurately presented an account of herself to the DVSA examiner and before me at public inquiry in an attempt to divert the blame away from herself. I find that she knew she was the sole named transport manager at the relevant time and by the standards of ordinary decent people anyone in her position would consider it to be dishonest to state otherwise and blame someone else. This is clear dishonesty.

Mrs Hough is not in continuous and effective management as a transport manager. Mrs Hough’s evidence on her understanding of her responsibilities as Transport Manager was shockingly poor. Mrs Hough was clearly unaware of how poor her compliance management was when addressing me.

I am critical of Mrs Hough for failing to obtain any continuous professional development since 2014, it is likely to have contributed to her present lack of knowledge and skill.

I am further critical of Mrs Hough for telling me at public inquiry that the faults on the licence were not her responsibility and that once she had taken over in February she had made right what was wrong. During a short hearing Mrs Hough has pivoted from seeking to assure me that compliance in being adequately handled to telling me that she does not know how to read a roller brake test print out properly, that she has never been taught how to properly read a rolling brake test and that she would not know where to get this knowledge.

When Mrs Hough was telling me that she sits down with the safety inspection records once a month she evidently had no regard to the standards of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness (“GTMR”) and that the transport manager needs to scrutinise the safety inspection records before the vehicles are returned to service.

Mrs Hough told me that she was familiar with the GTMR. I read to her the mandatory legal standards as follows:

13.Safety inspection records must be fully completed, and the vehicle declared roadworthy before it returns to service.
- 14 The transport manager or responsible person must have access to and review the completed safety inspection sheet or electronic record before the vehicle returns to service.
- GTMR
Mrs Hough responded by saying that she can go down to the garage on a weekly basis before conceding that, in fact, she has purported to delegate the duties to make sure the vehicles are roadworthy to the maintenance providers.

I find as a fact that Mrs Hough has not been continuously and effectively managing the licence by reason of lack of knowledge and skill and by reason of lack of motivation and focus on the task.

Mrs Wicks

In light of the above findings no further action will be taken against Mrs Wicks. On any analysis Mrs Wicks was not a transport manager on this licence at the date of public inquiry.

I understand that Mrs Wicks is currently exploring alternative employment. Should Mrs Wicks wish to return to the industry as a transport manager her application to do so should be placed before a Deputy/Traffic Commissioner rather than be dealt with via delegated legislation.

The Operator

I have no evidence that the position has improved for the operator since the MIVR and TEVR. I will set out a summary of the unchallenged SIPCAT here and otherwise summarise the facts found alongside the legislation for ease of reference and to reduce repetition.

The SIPCAT, Safety Inspection Period Calculator Analysis Tool sets out in table dated 12 February 2025 that:
- The number of late safety inspections was at 62% (18/29 records);
- The number of safety inspections were not fully compliant was 93% (27/29 records);
- Dangerous defects were found 17% of the time (5/29 records);
- The number of times a driver defect related defect was found on a safety inspection with no associated driver defect report was 10% (3/29 records);
- The number of safety inspections without a brake test is 90% (26/29 records);
- Significant failings leading to a PG9 which is a prohibition was 7% (2/29 records).
Findings regarding breaches of the legislation

Operator

The following findings are made.

Contrary to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 section 17(3)(a):
- the following statements you made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled - that your vehicles would be inspected at the 6-week intervals you promised they would be. 6 weeks is 42 days. The SIPCAT shows actual number of days to be 46, 52, 56, 62, 64, 65, 68, 69, 69, 71, 74 and 77 days.
Contrary to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 section 17(3)(aa):

you have not honoured the undertakings you signed up to namely:
- that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence would be observed;
- that you would observe the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and keep proper records;
- your 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/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing;
- that you would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request.
Overall each of these features speak for themselves and are evidenced in the DVSA reports and SIPCAT table. I specifically refer to dangerous defects being found in 10% (3 out of 29) records with no associated driver defect report. The extremely poor brake test history at 90% (26/29 records) without a brake test. I can only see evidence of one brake test which occurred when a safety inspections coincided with an MOT. I will exercise discretion in favour of the DVSA’s analysis and the operator’s favour. Whether it is 90% or 97% non-compliance for brake testing will not in itself influence my decision anyway.

It is a mandatory requirement of the GTMR that “Operators must satisfy themselves that the methods used to assess brake performance are sufficient to meet the requirements of Regulation 18 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/18/made).” As there was consistently no evidence of brake testing at the point of DVSA intervention this requirement could not be met. Vehicles are not fit and serviceable if they are on public roads with dangerous defects, outstanding prohibitions and the brakes are not tested properly or at all.

There is no reliable evidence that the maintenance and compliance has improved since the DVSA initial visit.

Contrary to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 section 17(3)(c):

your vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years specifically:
- A delayed probation was issued to vehicle YN69 XVK on the 28 January 2025.
- An immediate prohibition was issued on the same vehicle on the 13 February 2025. This immediate prohibition was issued as the delayed on issued on the 28 January 2025 had not been remedied and removed.
- An immediate prohibition on vehicle YN69 XVK on the 13 February 2025 for excessive movement in the steering joint, and joint in danger of separation, nearside, Axle 1.
- An immediate prohibition to YT11 LVB on 13 February 2025 for exhaust leaking, fumes likely to enter interior, danger to occupants health, rear, fumes evident in salon after five minutes running time.
Contrary to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 section 17(3)(e):
- since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, failure to notify a prohibition notice to this office and brake assessments not completed in accordance with requirements.
- Mr Hough is no longer engaging with reasonable requests of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. If he wishes to retire or is not able to continue by reason of ill health then the Office of the Traffic Commissioner should have been notified. I note that there has been no application to surrender the licence and no notification of a change of the circumstances of the holder for any reason.
- There was no notification of the prohibitions to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.
- There is strong evidence that brake tests have not been compliant for a long time. There is evidence of 90% of brake tests not taking place at all. In addition at the time of public inquiry the sole transport manager has attended and has given evidence that she does not know how to read roller brake tests properly.
Contrary to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 section 14ZA(2) the appropriate financial standing requirement is not met. No financial evidence has been supplied on or on behalf of the operator.

Mrs Hough

Subject to Schedule 3 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 Mrs Hough has lost her good repute as a transport manager.

Subject to paragraph 7B(2) of Schedule 3, of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 having found that Mrs Hough has lost her good repute as a transport manager she must be disqualified from acting as a transport manager. Mrs Hough is indefinitely disqualified from the date of the public inquiry.

Subject to paragraph 7C of Schedule 3, of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 should Mrs Hough wish to return to the industry as a transport manager she will need to complete a full Transport Manager CPC course again.

I find that Mrs Hough has not been continuously and effectively managing the transport activities on the operator’s licence. Mrs Hough has inadequate motivation for the role, having not carried out a large number of safety critical tasks. Mrs Hough does not have the any continuing professional development evidence, she is lacking in knowledge and skill to fulfil her duties. Mrs Hough has lacked credibility before the public inquiry and been found to be dishonest at the public inquiry.

Mrs Wicks

No findings are made.

Relevant considerations

Operator

In light of the findings above the Operator’s licence must be revoked on mandatory grounds of financial standing, good repute and lack of professional competence on the licence. Nevertheless I have gone on to set out what my analysis would have been for the elements are the public inquiry that would otherwise have attracted a discretionary consideration.

There are no positive features for the operator although this is its first public inquiry, there being no previous compliance history.

Negative features are that:
- The Operator has tolerated a culture of lack of operator licence compliance where there are inadequate checks on the transport activities to a degree which has tolerated a real and constant road safety risk.
- There has been a persistence to the issues over the whole reporting period identified by the DVSA with no evidence of improvement.
- Prohibitions have been issued to vehicles in use including when transporting children. One prohibition was an immediate prohibition issued following a delayed prohibition not being dealt with appropriately.
- There is no management control or systems to prevent serious operator licence compliance failings.
- There is no evidence of monitoring or disciplining of drivers.
Applying the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance this conduct is “Persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response”. The regulatory starting point is Severe to Serious. In light of both the seriousness and persistence of the issues and the totally inadequate response from the operator I place this in the Severe bracket.

I have asked myself the Priority Freight and Redsky Wholesalers questions which are “is this an operator I can trust to be compliant in the future?” and “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?” This operator has eroded any trust that can be placed in it by the long standing manner in which this licence has been operated. I have no meaningful evidence on which I can assure myself that the operator will be compliant in the future.

I then asked myself the Bryan Haulage question which is “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?”. The standard of this licence is commensurate with deserving to be put out of business. This operator is a road safety risk to themselves and other road users on a persistent and on-going basis.

No disposal other than a revocation of the operator’s licence could possibly be justified. No other disposal could satisfy the regulatory objectives on these facts. I am entirely satisfied that a revocation of the licence is a proportionate outcome.

The combination of a non-engaged operator and a transport manager unable to fulfil their statutory duty has been devasting for this licence.

Decision

Licence revoked as of 23:45 on the 28 November 2025. The licence is now without professional competence at all which is an additional risk to road safety. This cannot be tolerated for longer than the minimum period necessary for there to be an orderly draw down of the licence. To allow time for processing and for the necessary arrangements to be made to return the vehicle to where they need to be and otherwise draw down the licence the licence will be revoked on the 28 November 2025 at 23:45.

Mr Hough, having failed to attend the public inquiry, will be written to so that he has the opportunity to address me in writing on whether or not he should be disqualified from holding another operator’s licence, and from being a director of any company which holds such a licence. I will allow him until 4pm 21st November 2025 to do so.

Mrs Hough has lost her good repute as a Transport Manager by reason of lack of knowledge and skills and relevant attitudinal concerns including dishonesty. Mrs Hough would have lost her good repute on the omissions of compliance alone because there have been real and constant risks to road safety when she was the transport manager. The attitudinal concerns and her dishonesty before me also merit a loss of good repute separately. In totally Mrs Hough has lost her good repute.

Mrs Hough is indefinitely disqualified as a Transport Manager. This is not intended to mean forever. Each case must be determined on its merits. A defined period of disqualification is not suitable for Mrs Hough on these facts. An indefinite disqualification is appropriate to allow Mrs Hough time to significantly upskill. If Mrs Hough choses not to upskill then it would be appropriate for her not to work as a transport manager again.

Further there are attitudinal concerns that I have for Mrs Hough in light of her lack of credibility and dishonesty before me on compliance and transport manager issues. The attitudinal concerns also relate to Mrs Hough’s reluctance to engage with training before the public inquiry and omissions in her transport manager tasks such as assuring herself that vehicles were roadworthy via scrutiny of the safety inspection reports before the vehicles returned to the road. Mrs Hough was clear in her evidence that she wanted the business to be absorbed by a third party which would bring an end to the need for her to be a transport manager. It is likely that Mrs Hough was hoping to avoid the public inquiry process and adverse findings if the matter could be adjourned for long enough for the business to be absorbed by another company.

It is not acceptable to disregard transport manager duties as to do so displaces the trust held in CPC holders.

REDACTED

An infinite disqualification would not normally be reviewed until five years have elapsed which is proportionate to the serious of the issues before me.

I wish to be clear that I have chosen an indefinite disqualification the reflect the recklessness and lack of engagement by Mrs Hough as Transport Manager with her duties including those set out in the GTMR as mandatory directions. Mrs Hough’s dishonesty around her contributions to the licence will be harder for her to remediate and justify the imposition of an infinite order. The passage of a predetermined amount of time will not fix these issues. The time needed will differ from person to person and it is for this reason that I have selected an indefinite period.

Mrs Hough will be expected to complete her Transport Manager CPC again should she wish to return to the industry as a Transport Manager. This is because Mrs Hough has allowed her CPD to slip for so long that at times in her evidence she clearly did not realise what a poor picture of compliance she was painting. It is difficult, if not impossible to be compliant without knowing what to do and how to do it. The role of transport manager is a statutory role with mandatory training to reflect the complexity and responsibility of the position as well as the trust placed in transport managers by the industry and general public.

In relation to Mrs Wicks there is no further action.

Catherine Moxon

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

11 November 2025