Decision for AFL Scaffolding Limited (OK1145560)
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-25)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the South East and Metropolitan area for AFL Scaffolding Limited (OK1145560)

In the South East and Metropolitan Traffic Area

AFL Scaffolding Limited (OK1145560)

Public Inquiry held in Eastbourne on 10 June 2025

Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

Decision

The variation application to increase the authorisation to 3 vehicles is refused.

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (ca), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles Licensing of Operators Act 1995, Licence OK1145560 AFL Scaffolding Ltd is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 17 August 2025.

AFL Scaffolding Ltd and its sole Director Mr Alan Paul Fowler are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator’s Licence or being involved in the management, administration or control of any entity that holds or obtains an Operator’s Licence in Great Britain for a period of 2 years with effect from 23:45 on 17 August 2025, as provided for by section 28(1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act.

Background

AFL Scaffolding Limited hold a Restricted Operator’s Licence authorising 2 vehicles from an operating centre in Feltham TW13 5BN. The Licence was granted in August 2016. Mr Fowler has always been the sole Director. There is no compliance history until the recent DVSA investigation. However, a previous variation application to increase from 2 vehicles to 3 vehicles was refused in March 2023 as the Operator failed to alleviate safety concerns for an additional vehicle at the address.

On 12 January 2024, the Operator submitted a further variation application to increase the vehicle authorisation to 3 vehicles. The suitability of the operating centre for that number of vehicles remained an issue. An initial DVSA Traffic Examiner variation assessment had to be paused for part of the site to be cleared. A different Traffic Examiner (Mr Hounsell) attended on 10 April 2024. The site was deemed appropriate for 3 rigid vehicles so long as the rest of the work committed to was completed. There were caveats regarding the size of vehicles and other appropriate safety conditions, all of which were subsequently agreed by the Operator. However, correspondence between the Licensing Team in Leeds and the Operator now also focused on the number of vehicles it had in their use.

As part of its supporting evidence, the Operator submitted some aerial screen shots and photographs to the Licensing Team. Although the photographs themselves are not date stamped, the covering report said that they were taken on 28 January 2024. These showed 3 vehicles including BV15OSN, a vehicle which had not been specified on any Operator Licence since 19 October 2022 (except when specified on this Licence between 3/10/23 – 24/10/23). A further information request was sent on 07 May 2024 to which there was no response. A chasing email was sent on 03 June 2024. On 11 June 2024, Mr Fowler wrote that he had borrowed BV15OSN from a friend only to demonstrate that there was enough room in the operating centre (p.140) and since the photograph was taken, it had purchased the vehicle. Mr Fowler also stated, “we have put the 7500kg in storage until we find out the decision”.

On 14 June 2024 Licensing advised Mr Fowler that the VOL record did not corroborate his explanation. Vehicle BV15OSN was previously specified on its Licence for 3 weeks in 2023 and then does not appear on any other Licence until going back on to the AFL Licence on 6 May 2024. The letter included “Please give a detailed explanation of this and provide evidence that you recently purchased this vehicle and vehicle records to support this. Also, you stated that the 7.5T vehicle (NV65BUO) has been put in to storage to enable you to use the two 18T vehicles currently. Please also provide vehicle records for this vehicle from the time of purchase of vehicle BV15OSN”. That letter was sent by email and post to the same addresses as previous correspondence. Mr Fowler failed to reply and again a chasing message was sent (04 July 2024). This still did not elicit a response; therefore the Operator was referred to the National Compliance team for Propose to Revoke letters to be issued.

The Propose to Revoke letter (‘PTR’) dated 17 July 2024 is clear on what action was required if the Licence were to avoid revocation. There was a response the same day, but Mr Fowler only said that everything was sent to “Amy”, and he didn’t understand why National Compliance didn’t have it. As Mrs Crosby rightly pointed out, the Licensing team did not have the information and therefore he needed to address the letter directly otherwise the Licence may be revoked. Mr Fowler then sent a letter dated (and purportedly sent previously) on 26 June 2024. The letter is not a detailed account. Mr Fowler simply said that BV15OSN was borrowed from a “friend” for a short period in 2023 as one if its usual vehicles was with mechanics for repair and once works were complete Mr Fowler returned BV15OSN to the “friend”. The “friend” mentioned that the vehicle would be for sale after Christmas and therefore it was bought in February 2024. It was further stated that in February the vehicle then needed work doing to meet the safety standards.

The only evidence attached is a handwritten “chit” dated 26 February 2024 with no company header or serial number or invoice number from “M4 Vans and Truck Sales Ltd” with a Reading address showing £20,000 paid (page 152). That piece of paper could have been written at any time and by anyone. No evidence was produced in terms of money transferring or anything more formal from that seller e.g. an invoice on headed paper which complied with the Company Limited Liability Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulation 2015. The name of the company is not even correct – a Companies House search shows it is actually M4 Truck & Van Ltd [M4 TRUCK & VAN LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11887204)]. Therefore, I gave it little weight. The only evidence produced for NV65BUO is an invoice from United Repairs Limited dated 28 February 2024 with a one-month storage fee of £375 (page 153).

I deemed the PTR response as a request for a Public Inquiry but firstly asked OTC to request a DVSA investigation into the Operator’s systems and record keeping noting the very limited evidence being produced in relation to ownership and use of 2 out of 3 vehicles. The subsequent Traffic Examiner report identified serious levels of non-compliance, including use of 3 vehicles over a period of at least 24 November 2024 until 21 January 2025 (the extent of the data period used for the investigation (page 71). Mr Fowler was asked about the use at the investigation visit and admitted use of more vehicles for that period. In his written response to the TEVR (page 95), Mr Fowler made no admissions on use outside that period and linked the period itself to particular commercial need - being busy over the Christmas period.

Whist the call-in letter to Public Inquiry was being prepared, my office received a Section 9 witness statement from Senior Traffic Examiner Lance Cheetham reporting that NU65BUO was stopped in a laden condition on 16 April 2025 (pages 108/9). The vehicle was not specified on the Licence and there was no margin. Further, the tachograph data showed the said vehicle had been in “constant” use since 03 March 2025. The VOL record confirms that between 3 March 2025 and 16 April 2025 there was no margin on any of those days. In reality there has been no margin on this Licence since 2021 (page 6).

Hearing

The Public Inquiry commenced and concluded on 10 June 2025. Mr Alan Fowler attended for the company, represented by Solicitor Miss Catherine Gilder. DVSA Traffic Examiner Jeremy Childs attended via Microsoft Teams and was assisted in checking data and photographs by Traffic Examiner Mike Hounsell. It was Mr Hounsell who conducted the environmental visit and report in April 2024. At the conclusion of the Public Inquiry, I confirmed that a written decision would issue in a short period. I regret it has taken a little longer but is only just over on the 28-day guidelines.

Issues

The following all to be considered by me: -

(i) Evaluate the nature and degree of the unlawful operation of a third vehicle since 3 October 2023 through to the date of the Hearing.

(ii) The systemic failures identified by Traffic Examiner Jeremy Childs in his Public Inquiry reports, not materially challenged by the Operator.

(iii) The substance and timing of the Operator’s improvements, if any, to include the Traffic Examiner’s addendum report on evidence considered shortly before the Hearing.

(iv) The Operator’s failure to produce to the Inquiry all the evidence required in the case management directions attached to the call-in letter.

(v) Albeit financial resources are available, they are achieved through a period of unlawful operation and thereby raise the matter of an unfair competitive advantage with actual financial gain.

Operating centre suitability (capacity)

The variation application is to increase from 2 vehicles to 3 vehicles. The DVSA environmental report confirms an earlier attempt to assess the operating centre, could not progress because of materials on site. When Examiner Hounsell arrive at the pre-arranged follow up Mr Fowler told him “..that on his last visit by the DVSA that the inspector agreed with him to clear the left-hand side of the yard, which, on my visit, this was being carried out” (page 39). The environmental report erroneously refers to an increase to 4 vehicles, but this appears to be a misunderstanding arising from a conversation with Mr Fowler: “(The operator has been advised by a transport consultant (JH Transport Consultancy) that he should apply for one more vehicle that he wants so he has then a ‘Margin’. So, it is my understanding that the application is for 4 vehicles…. 1 spare” (page 40). The Operator’s representations restate that the application is for an increase to 3 vehicles only with no ‘margin’ arising.

The April report confirmed that once the work is complete the operating centre is suitable to operate 3 x 18t sought with safeguards, which are agreed by Mr Fowler. It follows that the operating centre suitability is finally resolved but the increase itself remains a live issue. The agreed conditions are:

Vehicles authorised under this licence will not exceed 18 tonnes gvw and 12 metres in length.

Vehicles authorised under this licence will enter and leave the operating centre in forward gear only.

At all times when vehicles authorised under this licence are entering the operating centre the driver will be assisted by a banksman wearing high- visibility clothing and so positioned outside of the vehicle as to be able to assist the driver to enter safely. A Banksman is defined by the Health & Safety Executive as an operative trained to direct vehicle movement on or around site.

The vehicles should enter the side road from the A312 North bound and exit South bound on the A312 from the same direction.

Approach

There is clear and consistent case law from the Upper Tribunal that a Traffic Commissioner is entitled to treat the conduct of the Sole Director effectively as the conduct of the Limited Company and repute or fitness is determined accordingly. Such an approach has received approval from the appellate tribunal on a number of occasions, such as 2013/008 Vision Travel International Limited and T2013/61 Alan Michael Knight.

Every director has a statutory duty under sections 173 and 174 of Companies Act 2006 to exercise independent judgement, reasonable skill, care, and diligence.

Operators, Transport Managers and those advising them are deemed to have knowledge of the advice and Guidance in the public domain, as per the Upper Tribunal in 2012/030 MGM Haulage & Recycling Limited.

The Upper Tribunal case of Liliana Elena Manole T2022/227 provides a positive endorsement to drawing reasonable inferences from primary facts

Evidence

The evidence is a matter of record from the Public Inquiry and Operator’s documents all available in one electronic bundle, representations and available transcripts. I do not repeat it here save as it is material to my findings. The Traffic Examiner Public Inquiry Brief first and addendum reports and oral evidence is not challenged in any material sense. The TEVR (pages 63 – 74) show that in addition to unlawful operation, DVSA uncovered serious systems shortcomings in respect of drivers status, driver licence check records, disciplinary records not kept and training not being recorded. Tachograph analysis identified an instance of a vehicle being used without a tachograph card (with no explanation/manual entry). Miss Gilder suggested that the failings were not extensive (linked to absence of manual entry after leaving a card in on ‘other work’) and no Working Time Directive issues in the first report. Whilst this is accepted as a starting point, Mr Fowler admitted to me that not all duty is recorded and where a report says ‘rest assumed’ on a week day that may not be accurate. Where not all duty is recorded, as here, an Operator prevents a Traffic Examiner from gaining a true picture. Further it is a fundamental principle of health & safety that systems are in place not just to ensure something has been done but to ensure that there is a robust audit trail. A system that does not work is no system at all.

Unfortunately, this theme continued in to the evidence for the pre-Public Inquiry Report. The Traffic Examiner was sent all the data and records for 2 drivers as required in the case management directions. Mr Fowler chose to send his own and Mr Hall as the 2 drivers and sent the data through for the 2 main vehicles they drive i.e. the two specified vehicles. However, Mr Fowler admitted that he was still not making any manual entries in relation to other work or mistakes. Further this approach disguises the amount of illegal operation of the 3rd vehicle. This flowed though into other directions. The Operator also required to send in the maintenance records for all vehicles operated for the last 3 months to my office for consideration. The DVSA report for 16 April 2025 confirms this direction included the third vehicle. Mr Fowler failed to submit any maintenance documentation in relation to NV65BUO, preventing any cross checking of the driver defect sheets with Mr Fowler and Hall’s digi data. The addendum report shows a worse compliance picture and limited meaningful improvements.

In terms of the maintenance documentation sent in, I set out my observations below and these were not challenged: -

The maintenance contract is out of date as it refers to the Transport Act 1968 not the Goods Vehicle Licensing of Operators Act 1995.

The PMI form does not include checking tyre age codes.

Some of the Roller Brake Tests were only a pass on lock allowance which is not necessarily a PMI pass (and Mr Fowler acknowledged in any event he doesn’t know how to read a Roller Brake Test report).

Only one driver defect sheet was produced and that didn’t have the rectification endorsed on it.

I received 4 PMIs but only two of them are within the period specified in the case management directions.

As noted above the Operator failed to produce any maintenance documentation whatsoever in relation to NV65BUO.

I received brand new policies, untested, and from the CVL retorque sheets I became aware that until a few days before the hearing the Operator was not retorqueing wheels. This is a significant safety risk.

Mr Fowler’s evidence in chief is set out in the written representations received on 6 June 2025 (pages 209 – 216). However, Mr Fowler’s instructions to his solicitor were shown to be unreliable upon questioning, even in obvious areas. By way of example paragraph 24 of the representations state “In April 2024 the operator purchased vehicle BV15 OSN (p103)….”. That was the date a V5 was issued to AFL but a registered keeper is not evidence of ownership. The purchase receipt produced by Mr Fowler in July 2024 is dated 26 February 2024 and the vehicle was not specified again until 6 May 2024. A more comprehensive analysis is set out below.

Consideration & Findings

As per the Traffic Examiner’s addendum report he was given little evidence of improvements, and the infringements identify a lower standard of compliance since 22 January 2025. The greatest mischief here is that the main improvements relied on by the Operator only started on or around 28 May 2025 which was after the deadline of records to go to the Traffic Examiner. I shared my screen to show some of those to the Traffic Examiner but declined to expect him to read them in detail noting they were not tried and tested by the Operator in any event. They amount to future promises only. In light of the admissions and findings it is inevitable that I make the adverse findings under section 26 set out in paragraph 1 above (including (b) and (h) in terms of the apparent changes in the maintenance and safety inspection arrangements for NV65BUO. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I find that the vehicle has fallen outside the preventative maintenance regime).

I am asked to find Mr Fowler was co-operative. I find that he was on the face of it co-operative with DVSA. By way of example, the TEVR includes:

At the time of my visit Alan Fowler (Director) advised me that he has Three vehicles which are in his possession and being used regularly. Tachograph records from the periods of 25/11/24 until 21/01/25 confirm all Three vehicles are being used on a daily basis.

However, where cogent advice is given in January 2025 and (i) ignored regarding the 3rd vehicle; and (b) not followed through meaningfully until after the call in letter and evidence deadline, the co-operation value is much diminished.

Mr Fowler was not a compelling or reliable witness. Mr Fowler’s evidence is fluid and unreliable. Through correspondence and then the DVSA investigation, Mr Fowler has known that I require clarity and cogent evidence in (i) the number of vehicles operated; and (ii) when they were operated by AFL since 03 October 2023. Mr Fowler has not given proper attention to this Licence or indeed this Inquiry. In terms of the use of BV15OSN Mr Fowler has hidden extensive use behind suggested candour. In June 2024 he said the vehicle was only in possession for one day to show there was space and was immediately returned (albeit subsequently purchased). In July 2024 he admits having the vehicle in possession for the short period when the vehicle was on the Licence (October 2023) but states the vehicle was then returned. When questioned by me in detail, Mr Fowler admitted that after he took possession of BV15OSN in October 2023 the vehicle was never returned to the “friend”. In January 2025, when shown the data Mr Fowler admitted to the TE the third vehicle was used ‘regularly’ but in fact the TE noted all three were being used almost on a daily basis for some weeks. The data also showed that the vehicle was used beyond the 2024 lead up to the ‘Christmas period’ mentioned on 6 March 2025. Mr Fowler then ignores the Traffic Examiner direction and previous OTC correspondence and continues consistently to unlawfully operate 3 vehicles until at least 16 April 2025, when the 7.5t NV65BUO was encountered at Leatherhead. Mr Fowler asks me to accept that the 7.5t vehicle has been parked up since that date.

The reality is that it was challenging to get a straight answer out of Mr Fowler throughout. The transcript will demonstrate how he tied himself up in knots. His oral evidence was contradictory and confusing. By way of example, I pressed for a clear answer on when BV15OSN was in actual possession. In oral evidence Mr Fowler said that the vehicle was removed at the end of October 2023 because they were in the process of purchasing it but it needed a lot of work done elsewhere. He told me that it was when that work was completed it went back on to the Licence (several months later) and then the smaller vehicle was removed for it to have a body change. Mr Fowler told me that when the vehicle came off the Licence, the vehicle went to CVL and was returned to AFL on or around 26 March 2024 but then there were issues with the air bags that took several months to resolve. Mr Fowler confirmed that the vehicle did not go back to M4/his “friend” at any stage and remained under its control. The work that was done on or around 26 October 2023 was to be reduced from the purchase price and the airbag work was to be done under warranty and therefore there’s no paperwork. I am told that all warranty work was done verbally and there are no emails, messages or similar. When I ask myself is that credible, I find it not so on balance because:

It contradicts correspondence sent to Leeds in 2024.

The sales “chit” is dated 26 February 2024 of £20,000 and marked “paid in full”. The invoice for work done in excess of £4,000 is dated 26/10/23.

No evidence has been produced as to when the purchase monies were physically transferred.

If that vehicle was in the Operators possession from 03 October 2023 or under its control with its contractors, then Vehicle Data Unit demonstrating actual use (alongside the data for NV65BUO) could have been provided.

It does not fit with the actual evidence on body work for NV65BUO.

Oral evidence originally said that BV15OSN was VOR after CVL warranty work in March 2024 until first specified on 6 May 2024. He links this to NV65BUO (7.5t) going to United Repairs for a full body change. When I referred to the United Repairs invoice dated 26 March 2024, Mr Fowler simply says that the date is wrong, the work was later. Mr Fowler said that that after the work was done the vehicle was stored at United because AFL was revamping its yard. When I took Mr Hounsell to his report he confirmed that on 10 April 2024 NV65BUO was at the operating centre, it is shown in one of his photos (page 44). Mr Hounsell’s report also includes “He stated that he has scrapped one of the vehicles that he was using as the engine had seized, so he has taken the body off of this one and put it onto another.” (page 39). Taken together with the February Storage invoice from United this strongly indicated that in fact by 10 April 2024, NV65BUO had all the work done, was at the operating centre and remained there. The vehicle remained in possession after being removed on 7 May 2025. I expressed my disquiet at how fluid the evidence was. Mr Fowler then admitted that because the variation application decision continued to be delayed and it got busy, he did schedule work to include the third vehicle. I specifically asked if he used 3 vehicles from when it was removed on 7 May 2024 and 24 November 2024 (after which use was previously admitted). Only then did Mr Fowler admit that he had done ‘sometimes’. When pressed on what ‘sometimes’ means Mr Fowler suggested once or twice a week.

Mr Fowler failed to produce any records regarding NV65BUO for this hearing either voluntarily or in line with the case management direction. The DVSA evidence confirms that the tachograph in NV65BUO was not downloaded from 10 February 2024 until the day of the DVSA investigation in January 2025 (page 107). There is no evidence that the vehicle was been the subject of the Preventive Maintenance regime whatsoever, save for a clear encounter on 16 April 2025 (apart from the illegal operation). In relation to the more recent use of 3 vehicles Mr Fowler told me that NV65BUO had only been used two or three times since January. I demonstrated to Mr Fowler how misleading that statement was. On the DVSA accepted evidence there was almost daily use on occasion to 21 January 2025 and ‘constant’ use from 3 March 2025. The best analysis on the information available (none of which is provided by Mr Fowler) the vehicle covered 8,749kms between its MOT on 1 May 2024, 3 working days before it was removed from the Licence, (gov.uk history odo 188,047kms) and the start of the unaccounted mileage figure on 9 January 2025 (196,796kms).

Mr Fowler asks me to believe that that NV65BUO has not been used again since 16 April 2025. The VOR report produced is not fit for purpose – it does not even include an odometer reading. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, even something as simple as photographs of the odometer reading on xx-xxxx-xxxx and 09/06/25, I do not believe him. Mr Fowler has lied and obfuscated since April 2024 on if, when and for how long the 3rd vehicle is operated. I find as a fact that apart from limited periods where NV65BUO and BV15OSN were under repair, all 3 ‘in-scope’ vehicles were operated from October 2023 until at least 16 April 2025 and more likely than not thereafter until it instructed a solicitor.

Conclusion

The written representations set out suggested positives. They are soundbites compared to the significant and ongoing failings set out above. Many changes have happened far too close to the hearing to assess whether they will work moving forward. Whilst this is a first Public Inquiry, the systemic failings were long standing. Mr Fowler has attended one day online OLAT but (i) you cannot learn honesty and integrity on a training course; and (ii) it was only attended 4 days before the hearing. I therefore give it limited weight. A transport consultant has been engaged but as this case clearly demonstrates, a consultant can only work with all data and records. Ms Huntley was never sent the data for NV65BUO or a full record of Mr Fowler’s duty. The adverse findings at roadside have been few but it has only been stopped 4 times in the last 5 years. Whist the MOT pass rate is 75% it is the one time of the year a vehicle has an appointment to be inspected by DVSA – a failure and advisories should be rare. In terms of NV65BUO the gov.uk history showed that it passed its MOT on 1 May 2024 but with advisories for corrosion on power steering pipes and air tanks. BV15OSN failed its MOT on 24 October 2024 for its windscreen (major defect). In summary, the positives in context make limited impact.

At the hearing I indicated a starting category for this case is “SEVERE” (Annex 4, Statutory Document No. 10). Miss Gilder had asked me to accept that it might be “SERIOUS TO SEVERE” but regardless both categories include consideration of revocation and disqualification. I have reminded myself of the helpful Upper Tribunal case of NT/2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd (underlining is my emphasis): -

11 The grant of an operator’s licence does not mean that an operator can then proceed on the basis that the requirements that must be met in order to obtain a licence can thereafter be disregarded. In our view it is clear both from the terms of the 2010 Act and from Regulation 1071/2009 that these are continuing obligations, which an operator is expected to meet throughout the life of the licence. It is implicit in the terms of s. 23, which gives the Department power to revoke, suspend or curtail an operator’s licence, that this can take place at any time and for any reasonable cause, including matters covered by the requirements of s. 12 as amended. It is explicit in s. 24, which provides that a standard licence shall be revoked if at any time it appears that the licence-holder is no longer (i) of good repute, (ii) of appropriate financial standing or, (iii) professionally competent. The underlining, in each case is ours. First, we wish to stress that once it appears that the licence-holder is no longer of good repute, or of appropriate financial standing or professionally competent the licence must be revoked because the Act makes it clear that there is no room for any exercise of discretion. Second, the use of the expression ‘at any time’ makes the continuing nature of the obligations crystal clear.

12 The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times the Department in Northern Ireland, (and Traffic Commissioners in GB), must feel able to trust operators to comply with all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field. In our view this reflects the general public interest in ensuring that Heavy Goods Vehicles are properly maintained and safely driven. Unfair competition is against the public interest because it encourages operators to cut corners in order to remain in business. Cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation.

13 It is important that operators understand that if their actions cast doubt on whether they can be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime they are likely to be called to a Public Inquiry at which their fitness to hold an operator’s licence will be called into question. It will become clear, in due course, that fitness to hold an operator’s licence is an essential element of good repute. It is also important for operators to understand that the Head of the TRU is clearly alive to 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.

Most of the narrative and findings link to the unlawful operation and Mr Fowler’s disingenuous approach to the inquiries made about the 3rd vehicle for over a year. This was appropriate because the DVSA evidence on the breach of licence undertakings are not materially challenged – nor is how very late important changes and training occurred. Most of what I have before me has really only been achieved since 28 May 2025. AFL came very close to being in the fourth category in the Arnold Transport test. Trust lies at the heart of operator licensing. Failing to have robust systems to ensure the lawful and safe operation of vehicles is a gross breach of trust. It strikes at the underpinning principles of road safety and fair competition – the level playing field. However, the situation here is one of the worst types – where the Operator puts commercial need ahead of compliance over a sustained period of time. Mr Fowler relies on temptation due to how long the application took. However, the application was delayed because suspicions of unlawful operation meant lines of inquiry must follow. Mr Fowler has shown himself as an individual who acts out of self interest and as he is the sole director there are no meaningful internal checks and balances.

The findings of fact are so serious and undermine Mr Fowler’s credibility and integrity to such a significant degree, that revocation is the only proportionate and appropriate outcome. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 1 above.

Disqualification

The relevant case law and principles are set out in Chapter 13 of the Upper Tribunals Digest of Traffic Commissioner Appeals (2023) and Statutory Document No. 10 paragraphs 65 – 69 and 107 – 109. The case law indicates a general principle that at the time the disqualification order is made, the operator cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and that the objectives of the system, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators, requires that the operator be disqualified. Each case must turn on its own merits. It follows that there are cases in which the seriousness of the conduct is such that revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legal framework. In my judgement I find that this is such a case and hope that operators and transport managers will be in no doubt as to the view which traffic commissioners take of this type of conduct.

Disqualification is a potentially significant infringement of rights, and the Upper Tribunal has indicated that whilst there is no ‘additional feature’ required to order disqualification the Operator/individual are entitled to know the reasons. Disqualification is not always ordered in addition to revocation. As per 2009/011 Katherine Oliver and J W Swan & Partners, Catch22Bus Limited, Philip Higgs v The Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWCA Civ 1022:

In SGSD No. 10. the starting point for disqualification after a first Public Inquiry is 1 to 3 years, but serious cases may merit disqualification of between 5 and 10 years or in certain cases indefinite disqualification. The absence of any regard by the Operator for anything other than the director’s self-interest and its commercial needs undermines the bedrock principles for which the operator licensing regime exists – road safety and fair competition for the benefit of all Operators. The fact that approach continued up to at least 16 April 2025 is indefensible. It is appropriate to send a message around protecting road safety and fair competition. Operators cannot make promises to obtain a Licence, and then continue to disregard any of the conditions and undertakings at will, and decide when (if at all) to engage with the Traffic commissioner and DVSA directions. It would be an affront to other compliant and law-abiding operators if, in such a case as this, an order of disqualification is not made. To do otherwise would support a regime of deliberate obfuscation and excuse potentially putting lives at risk. In my judgment the starting point is a 3 year disqualification. I have reduced it to 2 years to reflect Mr Fowler’s inadequate but last second attempts to make some progress.

Addendum

In writing this decision it has come to my attention that the MOT history online for BV15OSN shows that it was without an MOT between 1 May 2024 and 30 October 2024 (passed second attempt). I have not referred this back to the Operator post hearing as it makes no difference to my overall decision.

Decision

The variation application to increase the authorisation to 3 vehicles is refused.

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (ca), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles Licensing of Operators Act 1995, Licence OK1145560 AFL Scaffolding Ltd is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 17 August 2025.

AFL Scaffolding Ltd and its sole Director Mr Alan Paul Fowler are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator’s Licence or being involved in the management, administration or control of any entity that holds or obtains an Operator’s Licence in Great Britain for a period of 2 years with effect from 23:45 on 17 August 2025, as provided for by section 28(1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act.

MISS SARAH BELL TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN Issued: 9 July 2025