Decision for MTC London Logistics Ltd (OF2060738)
Source: gov.uk (2025-01-28)

Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the South East and Metropolitan area for MTC London Logistics Ltd (OF2060738) and former Transport Manager Iulian Bujorean

IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA.

MTC LONDON LOGISTICS LTD OF2060738 (1)

MR IULIAN BUJOREAN – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER (2)

Traffic commissioner’s Written Decision

Decision

Pursuant to adverse findings under section 26(1)(b), (f) and (h) and section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act, OF2060738 MTC LONDON LOGISTICS LTD no longer meets the requirements of section 13A(2) of the said Act - stable establishment, good repute, financial standing and professional competence. Accordingly, the Licence is revoked with immediate effect.

MTC LONDON LOGISTICS LTD and its director Mr Ionut-Adrian Chiperi are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator Licence or being engaged in the management, administration or control of any entity which holds or obtains such a Licence in GB for an indeterminate period with immediate effect, as provided for by sections 28(1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act. Any future applications involving former director Darius Motac must be referred to a TC/DTC and not be dealt with under any purported delegation.

Upon a finding that the former Transport Manager Mr Iulian Bujorean no longer satisfies the requirements of Section 13A(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 to be of good repute, in accordance with Schedule 3 of the said Act, and a finding that he is unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking, Mr Iulian Bujorean is disqualified from acting as a Transport Manager on any Operator Licence for an indeterminate period with immediate effect. It is not appropriate to set rehabilitation measures at this time, but Mr Iulian Bujorean has liberty to apply for further details in the future

Reasons

Approach

There is clear and consistent case law from the Upper Tribunal that a Traffic Commissioner is entitled to treat the conduct of a sole director effectively as the conduct of the Limited Company and good repute or fitness is determined accordingly. Such an approach has received approval from the appellate tribunal on several occasions, such as 2013/008 Vision Travel International Limited and T2013/61 Alan Michael Knight. As well as the operator licensing obligations, a company director must exercise his or her statutory duties of demonstrating independent judgement, reasonable skill, care and diligence, as per sections 173 and 174 Companies Act 2006. It is the Operator’s responsibility to keep VOL accurate.

I have not set out all the evidence as it is a matter of record in the papers and by way of transcript. I have referred to material evidence relevant to my findings.

Operators and Transport Managers have deemed knowledge of the advice and guidance in the public domain, as per the Upper Tribunal in 2012/030 MGM Haulage & Recycling Limited.

As all parties were unrepresented I set out in some detail the process, the importance of telling the truth and taking time before answering. All had the benefit of an Interpreter as and when required.

It has taken longer than anticipated to issue the decision and reasons together with those for the co-joined applications, for which I apologise. However, the contents are not a surprise to attendees Analise and Darius Motac and Denis Diaconita, who were all told the outcome on the day (3 September 2024). Further before writing this decision, I have reviewed the full case papers, my handwritten notes and listened to relevant parts of the hearing recording.

Evidence & Deliberations

The call-in letter and PI bundle were served on MTC LONDON LOGISTICS LTD at the current address on VOL at the point of sending. The call-in letter was also sent to the e mail address on VOL and informed the Operator the bundle was being sent by post. On 30 July 2024, my office also sent a copy of the call-in letter and bundle to the current (and sole) director Ionut-Adrian Chiperi at his correspondence service address on Companies House (page 64 of the PI bundle). At the hearing on 3 September 2024, Mr Chiperi failed to attend but I am content that the PI papers are deemed served. The former director Mr Darius Motac attended but this was also to pursue the two linked new applications (separate decisions issued).

In relation to MTC, as a witness Mr Motac was unimpressive; muddled and contradictory. Mr Motac told me MTC did operate a vehicle for 2 to 3 weeks shortly after grant; a hire company delivered a vehicle to the operating centre when he and the transport manager (‘TM’) Mr Bujorean were present. He told me Mr Bujorean inspected the vehicle but did not tell Mr Motac there should be other maintenance paperwork. After some thought, Mr Motac told me he thought Mr Bujorean sourced the driver. The responses were so unconvincing I put the scenario painted in context and explained the significance of Licence lending. Mr Motac then told me: -
- When he said MTC operated a vehicle for 2 – 3 weeks that was a ‘mistake’.
- When he told me that MTC hired a vehicle that was a ‘mistake’.
- When he told me that the vehicle was delivered to the operating centre by the hire company that was a ‘mistake’.
- When he told me that the TM inspected a vehicle with him in the yard, that was a ‘mistake’.
- When he told me that a driver was hired for the short period that was a ‘mistake’.
- There was no vehicle hire, driver or linked TM engagement.
- He told me this originally because he could not ‘recall’ what happened.
Mr Motac was equally unimpressive when it came to selling the company to Mr Chiperi. He sold the company for cash - £1500. He did not know how Mr Chiperi came to know it may be for sale or obtained his mobile number. Mr Motac assumed it arose via an unnamed ‘mutual acquaintance’. Companies House records and the bank account were all transferred over to Mr Chiperi. Mr Motac relied on lack of knowledge/inexperience for failing to update the Licence. I pointed out that if he was aware everything else needed changing then why not the Licence and in response I was told he did not think. He was not sure if he gave Mr Chiperi the VOL login but from recollection he did but then again he did not know if Mr Chiperi asked.

I am reminded of the words from the Presiding Judge C in the Upper Tribunal Decision 2009/507 William King trading as B King Scaffolding wherein he stated, “This was one of those cases where the more that we heard, the worse it got”. Mr Motac originally said that he did not go into VOL after he resigned as a director in July 2023. After further time he told me that he did access VOL and remove himself as a director on 22 July 2024. I asked him if he accessed VOL thereafter (having given two further dates 31/7/24 and 18/8/24). Mr Motac denied it was him. Mr Motac told me that he did not discuss MTC with Mr Bujorean since he resigned as a director (only ALM and Brit-EU). Mr Motac said he did not know who removed Mr Bujorean as TM on MTC. I pointed out this occurred with his named login @22:37 on 31 July 2024 and then Mr Motac said it was him. He originally said no one asked him to remove the TM and gave no thought as to his lack of authority to make such a decision. He then said Mr Bujorean asked him to do so, despite a minute or so previously stating they did not discuss MTC since July 2023. Mr Motac said he could not recall if he went onto the Licence again on 18 August 2024. After a break Mr Motac confirmed that it was him on 22/7 and 31/7 but not thereafter. When I pointed out there was access on 18 and 19 August he said did not recall, did not think so and then ‘no’. These prevarications were on just 4 VOL events in the 5 weeks lead up to the hearing. I have asked myself if this level of uncertainty is credible in the circumstances. Taken with the way the evidence evolved set out in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, I am not able to take Mr Motac’s answers as truthful on this or any other matter because was impossible to get a straight answer. There is only one version of the truth.

Conclusion

I make the following adverse findings:

The accounts and confirmation statement remain overdue at Companies House (3 January 2025) and no evidence of financial standing was sent in for the hearing, see pages 7, 8 and 11 of the PI bundle. Accordingly, I find that the Operator no longer meets the requirement of financial standing. Revocation is mandatory and not disproportionate in the absence of any communication – section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act.

A vehicle has never been specified and no evidence was produced for the hearing that MTC has access to a vehicle. The Operator does not meet the Stable Establishment requirement. Revocation is mandatory and not disproportionate in the absence of any communication - section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act.

No longer professionally competent – failing to respond to the loss of transport manager letter dated 1 August 2024 and no period of grace requested or in force. Professional competence is a mandatory requirement and as the Operator has failed to engage on point revocation is mandatory – section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act.

Failure to notify the material change – change of directors and ownership - in July 2023 within 28 days – not notified until July 2024 – section 26(1)(b), (f) and (h) of the 1995 Act.

Former director Mr Darius Motac shared his VOL login user name and password with new director Mr Chiperi. This is a breach of the VOL terms and conditions – section 26(1)(b) and (h).

Mr Chiperi has failed to comply with any of the case management directions and did not attend the hearing. I find that he has failed to co-operate with the Inquiry and the operator Licensing regime since 2 July 2024 – section 26(1)(b), (f) and (h) of the 1995 Act.

Sometimes, as here, the facts speak for themselves. The only positive is that this is the Operator’s first Public Inquiry and the former director’s attendance. I balance this with the identified significant breaches of the Licence conditions and undertakings. I am entitled to know whom I am regulating. Whilst the law requires vehicles to be specified within one month of use, where other requirements are ignored, the TC will always be concerned that vehicles may have been operated unsafely and unlawfully under the auspices of such a Licence. There has been a gross breach of trust as a result of the lackadaisical and opaque approach by the director and former director to such an extent that I also find a loss of good repute. Any other outcome would send entirely the wrong message to the hard working, legitimate commercial vehicle industry. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 1 above.

Disqualification

Whilst no additional feature is required for disqualification, a Licence holder and /or director is entitled to know why they are disqualified. Section 48 of the 1995 Act makes it clear that an Operator Licence is not transferable. Whilst a limited company is the Licence holder TCs must know who they are regulating. The conditions and undertakings on the Licence are carefully crafted to ensure transparency – changes of director and/or owner must be notified within 28 days of the event. In this case Mr Chiperi became the sole director and owner in July 2023 but he has never applied to be added to VOL. Since that time, he has failed to engage with OTC Licensing, OTC Compliance and the OTC Hearing Centre. In such circumstances, it is important to mark my disquiet at this level because I am on notice that the Licence was ‘purchased’ for nefarious purposes. As I have not seen or heard from Mr Chiperi I cannot set a fixed period of disqualification or rehabilitation measures. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 2 above. I have stepped back, just, from disqualifying Mr Motac as he did attend the Public Inquiry. However, his lack of credibility is cogently set out above. Mr Motac has a high hurdle to meet if he is to persuade a TC that he is trustworthy, knowledgeable, understands director statutory duties and capable of exercising common sense in the ordinary meaning of the words in the future.

Former Transport Manager Mr Iulian Bujorean

Mr Bujorean passed his Standard International CPC exam in Romania in 2019. He was accepted under delegation as TM on the MTC application and was in post from the date the Licence was granted on 2 February 2023. This was his first TM appointment in GB, but Mr Bujorean signed the declaration on the TM1 form. The expectations are clear. However, Mr Bujorean failed to notify OTC that he was not attending the Operator and operating centre as per the TM1 form or undertaking any Transport Manager duties. Mr Bujorean was granted VOL self-service user with TM access on 1 November 2022 to upload his application This breach of promise has enabled the MTC breaches of conditions and undertakings to be perpetuated over a sustained period. Mr Bujorean was removed online as TM as a third party, but he failed to notify OTC directly of his ‘resignation’ (a requirement signed up to on the TM1 form). Mr Bujorean was aware of the PI, whether any discussions took place with Mr Motac or not, as everything was sent to his current TM home and e mail address on VOL. Mr Bujorean knew that his good repute was under consideration on 3 September 2024. In the absence of any communication even after the call-in letter dated 30 July 2024, I find on balance that Mr Bujorean was a Transport Manager in name only from the outset. Such an approach poses a significant risk to road safety. As I have not had the opportunity to hear or assess Mr Bujorean I am not able to set a fixed period of disqualification or rehabilitation measures at this time. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 3 above.

Addendum

VOL self-service user access portal provides Operators, Transport Managers, Applicants and those who assist them with significant benefits in terms of timely communication and updating. However, such access must not be abused. The terms and conditions of VOL access make it clear that every user must apply for access in their own name, with their own user name and their own password. These must never be shared. TCs and OTC access the change history to identify who is making what changes and when to ensure the Licence is being managed properly. In this case MTC has misused access as described above. In addition, MTC permitted a third-party consultant to set up an account purportedly as Mr Motac. There was a user account for Darius Motac with a user e mail of (REDACTED) (mailto:xxx@xxx.xx), which the VOL Product Team have identified as a Consultant. Consultants are fully aware that they MUST clearly identify themselves as such in all communications. When I asked Mr Motac about the use of the Consultant, he said he had spoken to them quite often, most recently about the new co-joined applications the week before. Mr Motac denied that he had given the Consultant any access to the MTC VOL record. However, the user account data shows for the nefarious Consultant account that it was created on 19/10/2022 10:35:13 and last logged in on18/08/2024 16:43:20. The account which is actually Mr Motac’s ‘user’ (whether password shared or otherwise) shows it was created on 01/11/2022 20:32:27 and last logged in on19/08/2024 09:48:57. When taken together with paragraph 10 and 11, an even more unsatisfactory picture presents itself. There must be no repeat.

MISS SARAH BELL TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN.

Issued 6th JANUARY 2025