Decision for CW Moxon Ltd (PB0002629)
Source: gov.uk (2025-09-25)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North Est of England for CW Moxon Ltd and transport manager Linda Marlow

IN THE NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

CW MOXON LTD PB0002629

TRANSPORT MANAGER LINDA MARLOW

CONFIRMATION OF ORAL DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

In the matter of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981

Public Inquiry held at Golborne on 17 August 2025

DECISION

CW Moxon Ltd PB0002629

On findings in accordance with Sections 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the standard international public service vehicle operator’s licence of CW Moxon Ltd PB0002629 is limited to the operation of 15 vehicles for 7 days with effect from 23:45 hours on Wednesday 17 September 2025 until 23:45 hours on Wednesday 24 September 2025

The following undertaking offered by CW Moxon Ltd shall be recorded on the licence PB0002629:

CW Moxon Ltd will identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems in March 2026. The audit will assess the operator against the standards published under the DVSA earned recognition scheme: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/dvsa-earned-recognition-guidance-and-forms
- 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 at Leeds by 30 April 2026. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and 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 available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits (http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits)
· The Operator will engage the services of Fosters Transport Compliance until at least 31 December 2026. If the arrangement ends before that date, the Operator will inform the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in writing within 7 days of the arrangement ending.

All vehicles will undergo a roller brake test as part of every PMI. The results will be recorded, and the records will be kept for at least 15 months.
- A contract of employment for Lisa Dunhill as transport manager will be submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at Leeds by 31 October 2025
The appointment of Michelle Marlow and Lisa Dunhill as transport managers is approved with immediate effect and they can be added to the licence record.

Transport Manager Linda Marlow

A formal warning is recorded against Transport Manager Linda Marlow. I direct that the retirement of Linda Marlow as Transport Manager is recorded and that she is removed from the licence with immediate effect.

Introduction

CW Moxon Ltd (“the operator”) holds a standard international public service vehicle operator’s licence PB0002629 authorising the use of 18 vehicles issued in 1995.

The operator’s directors are Malcolm Marlow, Linda Marlow and Michelle Marlow. Linda Marlow has acted as the operator’s transport manager (“TM”) since 2021.The operator has recently applied to appoint Michelle Marlow and Lisa Dunhill as additional transport managers.

The operator, its directors and TM Linda Marlow had not previously been called to a public inquiry or otherwise come to the attention of a traffic commissioner.

In July 2024, two of the operator’s drivers were encountered by the DVSA. When both drivers’ digital tachograph cards were checked offences were found in relation to failures to record rest periods. The drivers were both issued with prohibitions until the operator was able to confirm that they had actually taken the required rest periods. The prohibitions were then removed and the DVSA did not consider it necessary to issue fixed penalties.

However, the incident prompted the DVSA to take a close look at the operator’s management of its licence and Traffic Examiner Lighfoot undertook an investigation visit to the operator in September 2024. Her subsequent report reached an unsatisfactory finding. The primary areas of concern related to the engagement of 2 self-employed drivers, an absence of driver training records and driving licence checks at the recommended 3-month frequency. There was also an absence of a documented approach to managing working time directive breaches and addressing serious breaches by drivers. It was noted the operator had a well-established system to outsource its tachograph analysis by the traffic examiner queried if the operator fully understood the results that were fed back.

The traffic examiner noted that TM Linda Marlow had gained her qualification in an acquired rights basis and that she had not undertaken any CPC refresher training since being appointed as TM in 2012. It was noted the operator planned to appoint two additional transport managers in due course.

The operator accepted the shortcomings in the initial traffic examiner report and gave assurances that the issues would be addressed.

A follow up traffic examiner visit took place in December 2024, and it was found that many improvements had been made with the operator willing to learn to be more compliant in future. There now was evidence of improved disciplinary systems., The use of self-employed drivers had ceased. The traffic examiner remained concerned about TM Linda Marlow’s training but noted the operator was considering appointing an interim TM whilst its preferred candidates competed their qualification.

A third visit by the traffic examiner in February 2025 resulted in a mostly satisfactory report. The primary issued remained the concern about TM Linda Moxon’s lack of continuing professional development and that she only partially exercised effective control over the licence. It was noted that little progress appeared to have been made to appoint additional or replacement transport managers. There also remained some issues with compliance such as the fact one of the drivers stopped in July 2024 was continuing to fail to record his rest periods correctly. Driver training records also continued to require improvement.

On 17 February 2024, DVSA Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) Jason Davis visited the operator to conduct an unannounced maintenance investigation. His report reached an unsatisfactory conclusion overall, albeit that 9 of the 12 subject headings were marked as satisfactory. The areas found to be unsatisfactory related to the completion of inspection records, the above average MoT failure rate (with some failures attributed to safety critical defects) and the absence of a system to monitor ad blue usage. Tellingly, the operator appeared to be unaware of even the requirement to have such a system.

VE Davis concluded that the assessment of TM Linda Marlow was unsatisfactory. As with the traffic examiner’s report this was because of the absence of evidence of continuing professional development.

The operator provided a response which again accepted the findings made by the VE and gave assurances of improvements. Evidence was provided that an ad blue monitoring scheme had been introduced and the operator said it was proposing to send its in house mechanic for IRTEC training to improve maintenance standards. TM Linda Marlow again indicated that the operator intended to appoint new transport managers, explaining that Lisa Dunhill and Michelle Marlow both now had dates for their CPC examinations.

Notwithstanding that response, the traffic commissioner considered the evidence of the DVSA reports was of such a nature that a public inquiry should be called to further consider the issues arising.

The operator had a prohibition rate above the national average for drivers’ hours prohibitions over the past 5 years. However, this was the result of the two prohibitions on the same day in July 2024 discussed above. The 10 traffic encounters in that period did not result in adverse outcomes. The operator also had 8 roadworthiness encounters with the DVSA over the past 5 years with the only issue arising being a delayed prohibition in 2024.

The MoT initial and final fail rates remain above the national average but have improved considerably since the VE’s visit in February 2025. All 6 tests recorded in 2025 have resulted in passes at first presentation.

The Call to Public Inquiry

The Operator was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 30 July 2025. This gave notice that the issues of concern to be considered related to 17(3)(aa), 17(3)(c) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“The 1981 Act”) as well as the provisions for good repute, professional competence and financial standing in Section 14ZA(2). Additionally, notice was given that the disqualification provisions of Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985 would be considered if necessary.

Transport Manager Linda Marlow was called up by letter of the same date that gave notice her good repute and professional competence would be considered in accordance with Schedule 3 of the 1981 Act.

Notice was subsequently given that the application to appoint Michelle Marlow and Lisa Dunhill as Transport Mangers to the licence would also be considered at the public inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 of the 1981 Act.

The Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry was heard at Golborne today. The operator was represented by directors Linda Marlow and Michelle Marlow. Linda Marlow also attended in her capacity as transport manager and Michelle Marlow as proposed TM. Also present was Lisa Dunhill, the operator’s compliance manager and second proposed TM. The operator, its directors and TM Marlow were legally represented by James Backhouse of Backhouse Jones Solicitors.

Evidence

In advance of the inquiry, I was provided with reports from the DVSA examiners on the evidence that the Operator had provided in advance of the public inquiry in accordance with the case management directions.

TE Lightfoot’s report indicated further progress had been made but drew attention to a lack of evidence that the driver licence check process was fully compliant. Some further drivers’ hours discrepancies were also identified where it was unclear what action had been taken.

VE Davis’ report did not identify that any issues from his previous report were persisting to any major extent. However, he did express concern about the timing and recording of decelerometer brake assessments. His previous report had described a “robust” wheel re-torque system, but the recent examination found one example where the records were not satisfactory.

Written submissions were also supplied by the operator’s solicitors. These accepted many of the findings of the DVSA examiners but provided further assurances of remedial action. Most significantly it was indicated that Linda Marlow would stand down as TM of Michelle Marlow and Lisa Dunhill were appointed. The operator has also engaged Foster Transport Compliance to provide it with advice and support. I was provided with a short report from Fosters outlining its initial contact and proposed work with the operator. It was also confirmed that roller brake testing was now happening at every inspection with effect from August.

Linda Marlow gave me an overview of the history of the business of its 70 years of existence. In recent times, the business has faced some challenges in the relationship of the family members and directors which came to a head in later 2024. Mrs Marlow, her husband Malcolm Marlow and their daughter Michelle Marlow have now taken full control of the business. The transition of ownership was a challenging period and Linda Marlow accepted this may have distracted her from her transport manager duties. She also accepted there were some areas where she may not have kept her knowledge up to date as required.

Lisa Dunhill and Michelle Marlow were impressive witnesses. Both passed their CPC qualifications at the first attempt. Both indicated that they have been involved in assisting in the transport manager’s role previously and they candidly accepted that they bore some responsibility for the issues identified by the DVSA. The CPC training has given them far more understanding of their responsibilities, although it was evident from their evidence that there are still areas they need to develop. Both explained that the transport manager duties were part of their current job role, and they would not need extra time to undertake that role if formally confirmed in post. Malcolm Marlow and Linda Marlow will continue to work in the business as directors.

Findings of fact

Based on the evidence of the DVSA examiners and the Operator’s frank acceptance of most of the shortcomings identified in those reports, I formally record the following findings of fact:

The operator has not fulfilled the undertakings it signed up to when it applied for the licence, namely that that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles would be observed, it would observe the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and keep proper records, and its vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(aa) of the Act.

since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, namely, the effectiveness of the control over the licence. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(e) of the Act.

Determination

Having reached the findings of fact recorded above, I have undertaken a balancing exercise in accordance with the guidance contained within the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10.

I am satisfied that the evidence I have heard shows the operator previously did not have fully effective management control in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings. In particular, there was a lack of effective procedures in place to detect drivers’ hours and/or Working Time Directive infringements. That is a negative feature that must carry some weight.

On the positive side, the Operator has clearly made improvements since the DVSA visits, and I am reassured that adequate systems are now in place or will shortly be put in place. I also take note of the absence of any previous traffic commissioner action over the 30-year history of this licence.

Having balanced these positive and negative features, I have gone on to consider the question set out by the Upper Tribunal in Priority Freight 2009/225 whether the operator can be trusted to be compliant in future. I consider I can answer that question in the affirmative today. The operator’s directors and proposed new transport managers have reassured me of their ability to be compliant although I am anxious that those new TMs continue to have appropriate external support.

I have considered the representations made that a warning would be an appropriate outcome. I am however troubled by the extent of the previous failings. Significant progress has been made since the first DVSA visit in September 2024, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed. Some of the changes such as the appointment of Fosters and the move to roller brake testing have only been implemented in past few weeks. I consider the operator should have moved more swiftly to address the issues although it has clearly acted with greater urgency after the call to public inquiry.

I have taken account of the guidance offered in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited (1999) SC 86 that regulatory action has a purpose in “deterring the operator or other persons from failing to carry out their responsibilities under the legislation However, taking such considerations into account would not be for the purpose of punishment per se, but in order to assist in the achievement of the purpose of the legislation”.

For that reason, I determine that formal regulatory action is needed in this case to reinforce the message to the operator of the expectation of future compliance. Having balanced the positive and negative features, I consider this is a case that falls into the moderate category described within Statutory Document No 10 and that the appropriate action should take the form of a limitation on the number of vehicles that can be operated but without having a material impact on current operations.

Accordingly, I direct that the licence authority is reduced from 18 vehicles to 15 vehicles for a period of 7 days to commence immediately.

Significant responsibility for the shortcomings described above must rest with Linda Marlow as the previous sole transport manager. However, I balance this with her previous good record and the fact that the DVSA reports did indicate many of the required systems were in place. This appears to be a case where a long-standing transport manager has failed to keep pace with the development of compliance, and this has resulted in her not being able to exercise fully effective control over the licence. I have taken note of Mrs Marlow’s intention to retire from her role as transport manager. In those circumstances, I consider that it is neither necessary nor proportionate to make an adverse finding in relation to her good repute. I accept Mrs Marlow’s request to be removed from the licence as transport manager.

The evidence I have heard today, has satisfied me that the statutory requirements for the appointment of Michelle Marlow and Lisa Dunhill as transport managers are met including that each will be able to exercise continuous and effective management of the licence. I confirm they can be appointed as transport managers to the licence with immediate effect.

I must warn Ms Michelle Marlow and Miss Dunhill that as newly qualified and newly appointed transport managers on a licence that now has a compliance history, they are accepting a heavy burden. They will need to make sure that they get a grip on compliance as soon as possible to ensure a positive audit report in March 2026 and avoid the risk of the operator being called back to a public inquiry when more severe regulatory action could be considered.

I have taken account of the undertakings recorded above in reaching my decision. Mr Backhouse made representations that Mr Humphreys of Fosters Tachograph should be allowed to prepare the audit report. Ordinarily, I would expect the audit to be completed by an independent person, but I recognise the depth of Mr Humphreys’ knowledge. Exceptionally, I will indicate that Mr Humphreys can be asked to complete the audit if that is the operator’s preference. I reserve the traffic commissioner’s position to ask for a further audit by a more independent person in the unlikely event there is any cause for concern about the initial audit report.

Gerallt Evans

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

17 September 2025