Decision for K & CO. Holdings Ltd (OF2036107 )
Source: gov.uk (2025-09-03)

Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for K & CO. Holdings Ltd, transport manager Faruq Arif and driver Tafadzwa Brian Madzonga

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

K & CO. HOLDINGS LTD – OF2036107

AND

FARUQ ARIF – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER

AND

DRIVER: TAFADZWA BRIAN MADZONGA

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Decision

The licence is revoked as of the 30th July 2025.

The operator and director is disqualified for a period of two years.

The former transport manager is found to have lost his repute and is disqualified for one year.

Tafadzwa Brian Madzonga has had his vocational entitlement suspended for three months.

Background

K & CO. Holdings Ltd holds a Standard International Licence Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles and 3 Trailers. The Director is Johnson Kudenga. There is currently no Transport Manager named on this licence. Former Transport Manager, Faruq Arif, acted from 8 April 2021 to 23 January 2025.

There is one Operating Centre at Pastures Lodge Farm, Raunds Road, Chelveston, Wellingborough, NN9 6AA. Preventative Maintenance Inspections were said to be carried out by Volvo Truck & Bus Centre and RH Commercial Vehicles at 6-weekly intervals but see below.

This licence was granted on 8 April 2021 and authorised 2 vehicles and 2 trailers at Wardle and Keach Int. Ltd, Clifford Hill Mill, Little Houghton, Northampton, NN7 1AL. Mr Arif was the nominated transport manager. A variation application was granted on 9 December 2021 increasing the licence authorisation from 2 vehicles and 2 trailers to 5 vehicles and 5 trailers and adding a new operating centre at Pastures Lodge Farm, Raunds Road, Chelveston, Wellingborough, NN9 6AA for 3 vehicles and 3 trailers. In April 2022 the operator removed the operating centre at Wardle and Keach Int. Ltd which consequently reduced the overall authorisation to 3 vehicles and 3 trailers. The operator was informed if it wanted to increase the overall licence authority it would need to make a variation application.

Faruq Arif is currently named on the following licences: OF2016960 held by Road Freight Ltd, acting as sole director and Transport Manager since December 2018; OK1095162, held by Belle Haulage Ltd, acting as jointly as the Transport Manager. He was previously named on OF2035209, held by Autotrans Ltd, as Transport Manager between November 2020 and October 2023.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 30 July 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Johnson Kudenga, Director, as was Faruq Arif, former Transport Manager, and the Driver, Tafadzwa Brian Madzonga.

Issues

The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26 (1)(a) – unauthorised use of a place as an operating centre.
- 26 (1)(b) – condition to notify matter including those going to repute and Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 26 (1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices
- 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices
- 26(1)(e) – Statement regarding inspection intervals and to abide by conditions
- 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles and trailers to be kept fit and serviceable, effective written driver defect reporting, full maintenance records to be kept for 15 months)
- 26(1)(h) – Material Change:
- 27(1)(a) – effective and stable establishment, good repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
Mr Arif was called separately to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a direction in respect of his repute under section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3.

Driver Madzonga was called to a conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether he should be permitted to continue to rely on the relevant vocational driving entitlement.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation with documentation to go for analysis by DVSA by no later than 9 July 2025 and 16 July 2025 for the submission of financial documentation and submissions to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. As of 15 July 2025, the DVSA had yet to receive any records from the operator. Royal Mail tracking suggested that the call up letter had been received and signed for. Companies House records suggest the submission of the operator’s confirmation statement is overdue. When the operator appeared for the hearing, it was suggested that it had ceased operations immediately following the DVSA intervention. No financial evidence of up-to-date information regarding compliance was lodged.

Summary of Evidence

What emerged in evidence was that there had been a series of changes which the operator had failed to notify. The operator apparently ceased operating between 2021 and c April 2023. It was at that stage that a Marius Farer had been introduced to the business. I was told that there had been disagreements between the Transport Manager and Mr Farer, who apparently attested to a knowledge of drivers’ hours and management. When Mr Arif contacted the Director, he was referred to Mr Farer. Mr Kudenga confirmed that he had left operational decisions to this Mr Farer and, despite having committed to the licence requirements, had little involvement or interest in compliance. Mr Farer was not produced by the operator, so I did not hear his version of events. It was suggested that he had “done a runner”. Mr Arif admitted in evidence that he failed to notify me of these changes despite having attended refresher training in 2023 (and again recently). He claimed to have warned the operator “all the way through” of the consequences of his not meeting Transport Manager duties. He tried to suggest that this all resulted from a lack of communication. He was right, given the abject failure to notify me of these arrangements, which I would have prevented. I was, in effect, misled by his continued association with this operator. That was the context in which I considered the evidence provided by DVSA.

On 25 October 2024 on the A1, Grantham Southern relief road, DVSA encountered vehicle DS66 BWB driven by Tafadzwa Brian Madzonga. It is alleged that the vehicle did not have a valid annual periodic test in force, that the tachograph calibration had expired, and that the load was insecure.

The statement of Traffic Examiner Catherine Payne explains how the vehicle was directed into Gonerby Services, Gonerby Moor. She interacted with Driver Tafadzwa Brian Madzonga, who produced his driver’s licence and CPC card. The Driver stated that the vehicle was loaded with clothing, which was not secured adequately. She issued a Roadworthiness Prohibition Notice for the insecure load. She noted that the vehicle test certificate had expired 30 June 2024. She downloaded the tachograph and the driver’s card inserted in the instrument. She then noted that it was a card issued to Rawlings Chinosengwa, which had been inserted at 10:07 hours. She issued the driver with a Driver’s Hours Prohibition Notice and an Offence Rectification Notice for the tachograph instrument not having been subject to a 2 yearly check (since 20 October 2022). DS66 BWB was tested on the 31 October 2024 and passed.

In his evidence, Driver Madzonga told me that he had driven from the Operating Centre that morning to a depot in Corby. I was surprised to learn that Marius Farer was present there but was informed that he took an interest in the loading of vehicles. Mr Madzonga was driving DS66 BWB but was then instructed to change vehicles, which he did, but was then told to swap back again. He told me that he was unable to produce his card to the stopping Examiner because he had left it in the other vehicle. It was inferred that Driver Rawlings Chinosengwa must have done the same. I tested this under cross-examination of Driver Madzonga. At very best, Mr Madzonga had entered into a long-term arrangement with this operator so as to reduce his tax liabilities. He assured me this is no longer the case as he drives through an agency, although his company remains active. On this occasion he had exited his vehicle, failed to keep any record of other work in making that transfer, made no effort to do so when he took charge of that alternative vehicle or when he subsequently returned to DS66 BWB. He was careless with his driver card and failed to notice its absence when he returned mainly because of a failure to record a walk round of the vehicle despite it having been loaded. He failed to check that the load was secured, resulting in a danger to other road users which attracted enforcement action by DVSA.

Ms Payne issued a Section 99ZA notice requiring raw Digital Data for all vehicles and drivers for the period 1 September – 31 December 2024, addressed to Faruq Arif. On 7 January 2025 she received an email stating that the address was unknown. She then telephoned the operator using the notified mobile number and left a voice mail asking the Transport Manager to contact me but received no response from the operator or Transport Manager. She sent a further notice on 14 January 2025 to the Registered Office 94 Damselfly Road Northampton, NN4 9ES and confirmed receipt, but received no communication from the operator or Transport Manager. Driver Madzonga was interviewed at roadside by DVSA, however no other driver interviews were conducted. The driver was unable to produce his own digital driver card and appeared to be using a digital driver card for which he was not the named holder. When Mr Arif was interviewed about the incident during the subsequent visit, he stated that he had nothing to do with the tachograph and drivers hours side of the transport operation concentrating on the maintenance side.

Examiners Mr Winn and Mr Lewis carried out those further investigations and interview on 23 January 2025 at Pytchley Highways Depot, Kettering. A number of alleged shortcomings were identified by the DVSA Examiners

The Vehicle Examiner, Mr Winn’s findings can be summarised as follows:
- Operating centre - not used as insufficient spaces available, vehicles parking in public streets, the DVSA alleges parking in Lichfield, a layby in Weston Flavel and Bedford. Naturally the Examiner expressed concerns in respect of security.
- Inspection / maintenance records – missing records/intervals extended; no forward planning system, ineffective VOR, and no system to manage defects/recalls.
- Driver defect reporting – ineffective systems.
- Inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements – contractor details not updated. Skinner Commercial and Wrights Commercial are apparently now used.
- Vehicle emissions – no monitoring systems in place.
- Wheel and tyre management – no systems in place.
- Load security – no written systems in place.
- Prohibitions – a Prohibition Notice was issued at the fleet check for a defective mirror.
Traffic Examiner, Mr Lewis’s findings can be summarised as follows
- No evidence of verified licence checks.
- Incomplete agreement between operator and an employment agency.
- Failure to provide meaningful evidence of its systems.
- No raw data or tachograph calibration certificates provided.
- Driver infringement summary pointed to very serious infringements.
- Driver cards not downloaded or downloaded late.
- Unaccounted/missing mileage.
- It was suggested that the operations manager, ‘Marius’ oversaw drivers’ hours and tachographs.
Both Examiners expressed concern as the level of involvement demonstrated by the named Transport Manager. It was said that he was only involved with the maintenance side and yet even there the findings pointed to a lack of effective management. The online self-service user information recorded the contact email address for this operator as xxx@xxx.xx The last time the account was accessed was 10 May 2025, i.e. after the resignation of Mr Arif on 23 January 2025. Mr Arif indicated that he continued to use this email account.

A surrender request was received on that date (23 January 2025). I am unclear why it took the Office of the Traffic Commissioner until May 2025 to notify the operator that the surrender application had been refused. Formal notice of the potential consequences from a loss of Transport Manager was only issued on 10 May 2025, requiring a response by 31 May 2025. However, on 3 June 2025 the operator emailed the following request “I would like to be given more time to find a suitable transport manager to take over the operation. I am very sorry for the late reply i was away on holiday”. In the absence of any tangible evidence to support a Period of Grace, the matter was referred to a Traffic Commissioner.

The Deputy Traffic Commissioner noted that Mr Kudenga, in his one line request for a period of grace, has signally failed to heed the advice given in Annex B of the loss of Transport Manager letter that he should give details of the period of time sought for the period of grace, how he would cover the duties of a Transport Manager during the Period of Grace and what action he was taking to meet the transport manager requirement as soon as possible. He found the response to be inadequate, but was mindful of the above allegations, requiring consideration at this Public Inquiry. He therefore directed that the operator be put on notice of the power to suspend the licence pending the hearing, pursuant to section 26 and no doubt had in mind the Upper Tribunal’s decision in 2012/005 AND Haulage Ltd. He directed that the operator be put on notice of the same. That was sent on 10 June 2025. In the absence of a response by 19 June 2025, the licence was suspended until the date of Public Inquiry, or the operator persuades a Traffic Commissioner to lift the suspension.

Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – condition to notify matters including those going to the capacity of the Operating Centre, repute and the ability of the named Transport Manager to meet Schedule 3, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices, 26(1)(e) – Statement regarding inspection intervals and to abide by conditions, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles and trailers to be kept fit and serviceable, effective written driver defect reporting, full maintenance records to be kept for 15 months), 26(1)(h) – material change in the Operating Centre, the absence of operations for a period, lack of financial standing and no Transport Manager to meet Schedule 3. I was told that one vehicle had been SORNd but all three were now stored at the Operating Centre.

In respect of the mandatory and continuing requirements, there was a certain inevitability to the action I was required to take. I nevertheless proceeded to consider the question posed to Traffic Commissioners by the Upper Tribunal decision in 2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?

Added to the failure to adhere to even basic requirements, the above instance illustrates the risk presented to other road users from poor loading to a vehicle which was out of test. There was no evidence of drivers being managed properly: with out-of-date calibration and a failure to supervise those requirements or to even have proper control measures in place. Such breaches fundamentally undermine the trust which can be placed in an operator, and which is the foundation of the licence grant. That is all the more acute where the operator is found to have used a device in an attempt to gain a commercial advantage through the retention of drivers.

As a matter of public record: Driver Tongai Kapuyanyika is named as a director of Tekma Care Solutions Ltd which is pursuing application OF2079891, seeking authority for 1 vehicle and 1 trailer. Driver Tafadzwa Brian Madzonga is named as a director of Tafmad Logistics Ltd, giving the occupation as HGV Driver. He is also named as a Director of Peaceful Pines Heathcare Ltd (Co No 14900555). Driver Rawlings Chinosengwa is named as a Director of RTR Logistics Ltd (Co No xx-xxxx-xxxx). In evidence it was confirmed the drivers had been paid through M& Kay Transport Ltd for agency services, but Driver Madzonga also confirmed that he was being paid to his company. As was confirmed in TC/2015/03681 RS Dhillon and GP Dhillon Partnership v The Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, regardless of the size of transport business, it will be rare for someone to be genuinely self-employed unless they are an owner-driver. The establishment of driver service companies and/or in this case the use of an agency to pay established workers, is merely a device to reduce potential tax liabilities and enjoy a commercial advantage. I refer to the publicly available guidance on the GOV.UK website advises that a person is an agency worker if they have a contract with an agency but work temporarily for a hirer. I quote: “You’re not an agency worker if you use an agency to find permanent or fixed-term employment.” . Even where there is a legitimate agency arrangement, the 2010 Agency Regulations apply.

As a result, agency arrangements should not be abused. I referred to the Tribunal decision in 2019/54 Bridgestep Ltd & Tom Bridge, where it referred to a conscious decision to enter into an arrangement with the company’s drivers which was highly questionable if not a sham. The reasons for doing so were anti-competitive being as they were, concerned solely with the cost of employing the drivers and by reducing that cost, gaining a competitive advantage over other compliant operators. The Tribunal went on to describe most operators making the right decision to employ their drivers, paying national insurance, pension contributions, holiday and sickness entitlement. However, the consequence was that the company and Transport Manager felt unable to give any instruction to drivers whether it be in relation to route planning or otherwise and consequently, were unable to have continuous and effective management of the transport operation. In this case, Mr Arif had handed those responsibilities to another. He told me he was concerned with the safety of the vehicles, sadly not with the safety of how they were operated. He was unaware of how the Drivers were employed or the extent of control which might be exercised over them.

In 2017/023 Robert Arrowsmith trading as Arrowhead Contractors, the Upper Tribunal emphasised the: “need for a proper, active transport manager is not a mere formality but a serious requirement.” It follows that a Transport Manager must be more than a name and should actively discharge their duty to exercise continuous and effective management. Continuous and effective responsibility means just that. An applicant or operator can be taken to be aware of the various guidance documents. I was told that his other licence had a recent desk-based assessment but, despite having received refresher training, Mr Arif repeatedly failed to alert me to a situation where he was not fulfilling the responsibilities. This has eroded the trust I can place in him. He apparently continued to be paid even where there was no operation. He continued to be paid as a Transport Manager when not meeting those statutory responsibilities. As per the Upper Tribunal and Senior Traffic Commissioner - 2003/25 Cowan & Fenny, a Transport Manager risks their repute if they find themselves in this position. If a transport manager finds them-self overridden by the operator or their agent to the point at which the Transport Manager no longer has the requisite continuous and effective responsibility, the transport manager must first notify the operator in writing and then, if the matter is not resolved, is expected to take appropriate action. Mr Arif has lost his repute as a Transport Manager.

The operator’s conduct fell squarely within the definition of SEVERE, for the purposes of regulatory intervention. Mr Kudenga very fairly accepted that he was not fit to ensure future compliance as at this date. That acknowledgement now attracts some limited credit. As does the fact that this was the first Public Inquiry, but it also leads to the inevitable conclusion that this operator should be removed from the industry. Revocation will take effect from 23:45 today.

As the Upper Tribunal identified in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage: “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the appellant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”. The relevance of deterrence was further confirmed in the leading case of 2022/227 Lineage UK Transport Ltd. I determined that I must take deterrent action to make clear to this operator and others who might be tempted to adopt a similar course, that this type of behaviour undermines the licensing system as a whole and will not be tolerated.

The amendments to paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act provide for a minimum period of one year disqualification of a transport manager after ceasing to be of good repute, beginning with the day on which the order was made, before any disqualification order may be cancelled. Beyond that, when considering disqualification, traffic commissioners should take account of the general legal principle that each case must be looked at on its merits. A tariff system is not appropriate. However, traffic commissioners are entitled to rely on the starting points advocated by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. Having taken evidence on the impact of such intervention, I imposed a period of disqualification of the operator and Director for a period of 2 years.

Driver Conduct

Mr. Madzonga holds a substantive LGV entitlement. He was issued with a penalty in November 2022 for failing to comply with traffic light signals. He was fined £160, and his licence was endorsed with 3 penalty points.

The relevant legislation is set out in Sections 110-122 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The legislation draws a clear distinction between Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) licence holders and applicants and Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licence holders and applicants.

Section 112 of the 1988 Act provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant to an applicant a LGV driver’s licence or a PCV driver’s licence unless he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that he is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. It is section 121(1) which defines conduct - in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a LGV driver’s licence or the holder of a UK licence for the Community, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle.

As the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 6 on Vocational Driver Conduct advises, where a driver uses a device and that includes another driver’s card to avoid detection or to produce a false record, they can expect to be prevented from driving for a minimum of 12 months. In light of the evidence availability, I do not find it appropriate to make that adverse finding but, as recorded above, there were a series of errors which fell far below the standard expected of a professional driver relying on a vocational entitlement.

The Administrative Court, on the application of Meredith and Others EWHC 2975 (Admin) 18 explained that, whilst the personal circumstances of the driver are, at the preliminary stage of consideration of fitness, irrelevant to the question whether his conduct as a driver has been such as to make him unfit, save to the extent that those circumstances concern his conduct as a driver. Personal circumstances which go to mitigate the conduct itself (such as illness, or emergency, or momentary lapse of attention, or carelessness) will be relevant, while personal circumstances which would, in the ordinary sentencing exercise by a criminal court go to mitigation of penalty (such as loss of work, or other hardship, or the dependence of others upon the licence-holder) would not. Mr Madzonga currently relies on his vocational entitlement to drive vehicles above 7.5 tonnes but through a driving agency. I am entitled to infer that he is available for operations out of scope of this regime.

The High Court did not go on to consider the applicability of the principle of deterrence, which was considered by the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1999] SC 86, but regulatory action undoubtedly contributes to achieving of the purpose of the legislation. In this case, taking account of the level of poor judgement, balanced against recent Driver CPC training, said to have been undertaken but not evidenced, I have settled on a period of 3 months suspension with immediate effect.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

30 July 2025