Decision for Stuart Alan Morgan (OG1135437)  & Swansea Sand & Gravel Ltd (OG2036624)
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-26)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for Wales for Stuart Alan Morgan & Swansea Sand & Gravel Ltd

IN THE WELSH TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR WALES

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD AT PONTYPRIDD ON 2 OCTOBER 2025

Stuart Alan Morgan OG1135437

& Transport Manager Stuart Alan Morgan

& Swansea Sand & Gravel Ltd OG2036624

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators Act 1995 (“the Act”)

Decisions made in respect of operator’s licence held by Stuart Alan Morgan OG1135437

Pursuant to adverse findings under sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(f), 26(1)(h), 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(b) of the Act, operator licence OG1135437 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on 30 November 2025.

Stuart Alan Morgan is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence or being a director or partner of any entity that holds or obtains such a licence in Great Britain for a period of FIVE YEARS in terms of section 28(1) of the Act with effect from 23:45 hours on 30 November 2025.

Section 28(4) of the Act shall apply to the disqualification order made in respect of Stuart Alan Morgan for a period of FIVE YEARS in that if he becomes a director of, or holds a controlling interest in, a company which holds an operator’s licence, or operates goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds an operator’s licence, then the licence of that company or person shall be liable to revocation, suspension or curtailment in terms of section 26 of the Act.

Decisions made in respect of Transport Manager Stuart Alan Morgan

Transport Manager Stuart Alan Morgan no longer satisfies the requirements of paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 to the Act to be of good repute.

Pursuant to paragraphs 16(2) and 17(1A) of Schedule 3 to the Act, Stuart Alan Morgan is disqualified with effect from 23:45 hours on 30 November 2025 for the period of FIVE YEARS from acting as a Transport Manager on an operator’s licence.

Decisions made in respect of operator’s licence held by Swansea Sand & Gravel Ltd OG2036624

Pursuant to adverse findings under sections 26(1)(b); 26(1)(ca); 26(1)(e); 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Act, operator licence OG2036624 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on 12 November 2025.

Background

Sole trader, Stuart Alan Morgan, holds standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence OG1135437 which was granted on 29 May 2015, originally for 4 vehicles and 4 trailers. He became the transport manager on the licence in 2021 when he obtained his transport manager CPC qualification. Stuart Morgan is also the sole director of Swansea Sand and Gravel Ltd (“SSG”) which holds restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence OG2036624 authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers, which was granted on 7 February 2022.

There is previous adverse compliance history. Stuart Morgan was called to a Preliminary Hearing on 25 March 2019 and was given a formal warning by the presiding Traffic Commissioner for failings found. He was called to a public inquiry on 27 January 2020 when adverse findings were made for maintenance failures, his repute as operator was found to be severely tarnished and his licence was curtailed to the current level of authorisation – 3 vehicles and 3 trailers. He was again called to a public inquiry for consideration of maintenance compliance failings and other issues on 4 February 2022 when some of the same adverse findings were made and the licence was curtailed by one vehicle for a period of 14 days, with an undertaking attached to the licence for an audit to be conducted. Propose to revoke proceedings were commenced in respect of Stuart Morgan’s licence by notice of 12 September 2022 because he failed to comply with the undertaking given at the public inquiry. The audit report was subsequently provided, and Stuart Morgan was issued with a warning on 28 November 2022 for ongoing maintenance compliance issues identified in the report and for his failure to fulfil the terms of the undertaking by the due date.

On 18 July 2024, vehicle SA05MOG and trailer, operated by SSG was issued with an “S” marked prohibition following a Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) roadside stop which found tyre with tread worn beyond the legal limit, an insecure load and tyres of different nominal sizes. Stuart Morgan was also issued with a fixed penalty notice and received 3 penalty points for using the vehicle with a defective tyre. That triggered a DVSA maintenance investigation on 11 November 2024 by Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) Mark Davies which found significant compliance failures in the operator’s maintenance systems and falsification of safety inspection records by Stuart Morgan. When VE Davies asked for the vehicle safety inspection records during his maintenance inspection visit, Stuart Morgan was unable to produce them and stated that he kept them at his home address. VE Davies arranged to meet Stuart Morgan that evening to continue his questioning and to collect the safety inspection records from his home address. Stuart Morgan stated that the vehicles were maintained by Martin Smith of Commercial Vehicle Repairs (Llanelli) Ltd – the maintenance provider stated on the licence record - and he provided what purported to be five safety inspection records for vehicle SA05MOG for dates between January and October 2024 - two signed by “M. Smith” and three by “C.Evans”. However, upon reviewing the records that he had been given, VE Davies became suspicious about their authenticity. VE Davies interviewed Martin Smith who confirmed that his company had not carried out any maintenance on the operator’s vehicles since 2023 and he confirmed that the inspection records in question were not signed by him. Martin Smith showed VE Davies a text message that he had received from Stuart Morgan that day, 13 November 2024, which included a request for fraudulent invoices in connection with VE Davies’ investigation. The text message, so far as is relevant, read as follows: “Ye it went for test and I just wired it open so it passed. But that’s all they got on the lorry which is pathetic. Iv just kept on top of them myself to try and save some money atm. Everything that has gone fucked has nearly fucked me. I was missing 3 inspections on the daf so I had to doctor some. If I send you a wall planner could you invoice me for them. If you can’t no probs I understand.” VE Davies then interviewed Christopher Evans at WG Davies Group Ltd, who had purportedly signed the other inspection records. He confirmed that the signatures were not his and provided a formal witness statement confirming that he had not carried out any inspections on the vehicle in 2024. When this evidence was put to Stuart Morgan, he admitted that he had falsified the safety inspection records. He was prosecuted and on 16 May 2025 at the Llanelli Magistrates’ Court he pleaded guilty to five separate offences on dates between 6 January and 15 October of falsifying inspection records relating to heavy goods vehicles with intent to deceive, contrary to section 173(1)(a) and (2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Magistrates’ Court concluded that its sentencing powers were insufficient and committed Stuart Morgan to Swansea Crown Court for sentence. On 4 July 2025, Stuart Morgan was sentenced for the five offences and received a Community Order for 18 months with a 10-day rehabilitation requirement, a requirement for 200 hours unpaid work, and ordered to pay victim surcharge and prosecution costs amounting to £364. SSG pleaded guilty and was convicted of the offence, on 2 September 2024 and throughout the month of September 2024, of using a vehicle when there was no valid goods vehicle test certificate in force for the vehicle, contrary to section 53(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It was fined and ordered to pay costs in the sum of £805.

In view of the serious maintenance concerns in respect of the licence held by SSG and the prosecution of Stuart Morgan for offences of falsifying safety inspection records for HGVs, I requested the DVSA to conduct a maintenance investigation into the licence held by Stuart Morgan as sole trader on which he was the nominated transport manager. VE Mark Davies’ subsequent maintenance investigation visit report was also marked “report to OTC” due to serious concerns as to Stuart Morgan’s compliance with maintenance requirements and his ineffective control as operator and transport manager.

Stuart Morgan was called to public inquiry as operator and transport manager in view of his convictions for the offences of falsifying safety inspection records for HGVs with intent to deceive, and to explore the shortcomings identified by the DVSA in respect of both operations – Stuart Morgan, licence OG1135437, and SSG, licence OG2036624. Call up letters dated 18 August 2025 were sent to Mr Morgan in his capacity as sole director of SSG, as sole trader, and as transport manager. There is one public inquiry Brief covering all matters.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for 2 October 2025 at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for Wales in Pontypridd. Despite the deadline stated in the call up letters to Stuart Morgan to submit financial evidence to my office and the completed form indicating who would be attending the hearing by 18 September, nothing was submitted by him, or on his behalf, by that date. On 19 September, an adjournment request was made on behalf of the parties by solicitor Eliot Willis of NA Legal. The stated purpose of the adjournment was that Mr Morgan may not have been available to attend the hearing because he was attending court as a witness the preceding day. I refused that application and directed that the hearing would proceed, as listed, on 2 October 2025. It commenced and concluded on that date. Stuart Morgan attended as sole trader operator, as sole director of operator SSG, and in his capacity as a transport manager. He was represented by Eliot Willis, solicitor, of NA Legal, who represented him in all three capacities. I heard oral evidence from Stuart Morgan and representations from Eliot Willis. At the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated that I was reserving my decision and would issue a written decision as soon as possible.

Issues

The public inquiry was called for me to consider whether there were grounds for me to intervene in respect of the licence held by Stuart Morgan specifically by reference to the following provisions of the Act: sections 13A, 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), 26(1)(h), 26(6), 27(1) and 28 and Schedule 3.

SSG was called to the inquiry for me to consider whether there were grounds for me to intervene in respect of the licence held by it specifically by reference to the following provisions of the Act: sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(ca), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), 26(1)(h), 26(6) and 28.

Stuart Morgan was called as Transport Manager to consider whether I should make a finding against his repute and prevent him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence - Schedule 3 to the Act.

Evidence

In addition to the papers in the public inquiry brief, the DVSA produced Public Inquiry Supplementary Statements for the purpose of the hearing which were provided to all parties in advance. These statements simply confirmed that Stuart Morgan and SSG had failed to comply with the directions to send updated maintenance and drivers’ hours documents in respect of both licences to the DVSA by the stated deadline of 11 September 2025. These were 2 statements (one in respect of each operator) from VE Mark Davies, dated 15 September 2025 and 2 statements from TE Alec Thomas, dated 17 September 2025.

The call up letter directions also required Stuart Morgan to submit financial evidence by 18 September due to concerns that the operators, Stuart Morgan and SSG, may not be of the appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised. A 68-page bundle was submitted electronically to my office by Mr Willis at 16:48 hours the evening before the public inquiry hearing which included what were described as “Business Bank Statements”. I received this bundle on the morning of the hearing. There were no written submissions or witness statements adducing the evidence and not even a covering letter explaining what the documents were or why they were being submitted. There was an index, but that explained little. I noted that the bank statements included in the bundle were in the name of a different legal entity – neither Stuart Morgan, sole trader, nor SSG. The bank statements were in the name of SA Morgan Ai Feibion Cyf, which translates as SA Morgan and Sons Limited. That company was an entirely separate legal entity from either of the licence holders who appeared before me at the inquiry. I queried this as a preliminary point with Mr Willis and noted that one of the matters for consideration at the hearing was the allegation within the call-up letter to Stuart Morgan, sole trader, that there may have been a change in legal entity. The call up letter stated that I had noted that Stuart Morgan was listed as a director for a limited company in the name of SA Morgan ai Feibion Cyf and requested that he provide an explanation for this link in the evidence he provided, with reference to a potential change of entity. During a short adjournment of proceedings for me to consider certain documents which Eliot Willis indicated were particularly relevant and that he wished me to consider, he submitted some further finance documents electronically to my office. Those documents were a Factoring Agreement and Finance Agreement Authorisation. However, those finance documents were also in the name of the limited company – SA Morgan Ai Feibion Cyf. It was accepted that Stuart Morgan did not meet the mandatory and continuous requirement to have appropriate financial standing, although Mr Willis appeared not to accept that revocation of the licence was mandatory under section 27(1)(a) of the Act. He accepted that the licence could not continue to operate because Stuart Morgan no longer met the financial standing requirement but made no further legal argument in that regard and made no application to surrender the licence.

Also received in advance of the hearing were some, but not all, of the maintenance and driver management documents that Stuart Morgan and SSG had been directed to send to the DVSA witnesses. These were sent to my office by Eliot Willis on 26th and 30th September but were incomplete. He explained that they had been sent to my office because they had been sent to the DVSA witnesses late, after they had prepared their public inquiry statements, and were sent to my office “for the sake of completeness” to show that evidence was sent, even if the directions were not complied with to the letter and in the knowledge that some of it – raw data for the TE – required specialist software to open which OTC staff do not have access to. That evidence only related to vehicles operated by Stuart Morgan, not SSG, and those did not include all that had been requested – I noted that none of the requested driver defect reports, forward planner or wheel removal and retorque records were included. It was explained that no finance, maintenance or driver management documents had been submitted in relation to SSG because it had stopped operating around January 2025. An application had been made to surrender that licence on 15 January 2025, but that application was refused by me under section 16(4) of the Act as I was considering giving a direction in respect of the licence under section 26.

It was established at the start of the inquiry that the DVSA evidence was not contested by Stuart Morgan and that he accepted the evidence set out in those reports and statements included in the public inquiry brief, except in one respect. That was at page 202 of the Brief, where there was a reference in a DVSA report to a “negative event” on 7 June 2025, described as “Fail to comply with a Prohibition”. Stuart Morgan gave evidence about the circumstances of the prohibition and its removal, with reference to one of the documents in the bundle produced by the operator for the hearing (at page 23). For the purposes of this decision, I have accepted Stuart Morgan’s evidence in that regard, namely that the prohibition in question was removed by the DVSA on 6 June 2025 and so I do not find that he failed to comply with a prohibition when the vehicle was stopped the following day, as suggested by the first entry on page 202 of the public inquiry brief.

I do not set out all of the evidence in this decision because it is a matter of record within the bundle and transcript of proceedings.

Findings of fact

It is clear and obviously accepted by Stuart Morgan (in view of his guilty pleas in the criminal court) that the offences referred to at paragraph 3 above, and more fully set out in the public inquiry brief, were committed by him. Those offences were offences of dishonesty – deliberate acts of falsifying safety inspection records relating to commercial vehicles with intent to deceive the DVSA. At inquiry, Stuart Morgan sought to suggest that these offences were committed due to “panic” on his part. However, I did not accept that, noting that they were committed over a prolonged period between January and October 2024. I also noted from the evidence, as set out in the DVSA sentencing submissions and with reference to the text message sent by Stuart Morgan to one of the individuals whose signature he had forged, that his motivation was financial gain. He later admitted to the DVSA that he had been undertaking his own inspections to save money. His intention in falsifying the documents was quite obviously to deceive the DVSA into believing that the mandatory safety inspections had been carried out by the competent individuals named on those falsified inspection reports. Stuart Morgan failed to notify his convictions to my office within 28 days, as required by the condition of his operator’s licence and that of SSG, and SSG failed to notify my office of its conviction referenced at paragraph 3 above, of using a vehicle for the month of September 2024 without a valid goods vehicle test certificate (section 26(1)(b) of the Act is made out – both operators). I find that SSG did not fulfil statements made when the licence was applied for, namely that vehicles would be inspected at the 6 weekly intervals the operator promised they would be and that safety inspections would be carried out by Martin Smith (section 26(1)(e) of the Act is made out - SSG). I find that Stuart Morgan was issued with a relevant fixed penalty notice whilst driving an SSG vehicle with defective tyres on 18 July 2024 (s26(1)(ca) is made out – SSG). It is clear and undisputed that both operators’ vehicles have been issued with prohibition notices in the past five years (s26) (1)(c)(iii) is made out – both operators). I find on the DVSA evidence, accepted by the operators, that the undertakings on both licences have not been honoured, namely that the operators would keep vehicles and trailers fit and serviceable; would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request; and that drivers would promptly report any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing (s26(1)(f) is made out – both operators). I find on the evidence at inquiry (financial and other third party documents which referred to a different operating entity and Stuart Morgan’s oral evidence) that there has been a material change in the legal entity operating licence OG1135437 since January 2025. The entity operating the licence since then has been a limited company of which he is the sole director – SA Morgan ai Feibion Cyf. He accepted that he knew that he should have made a new application to operate as a limited company in January and that he was at fault for not doing so. I find that Stuart Morgan no longer meets the mandatory requirement in section 13A of the Act as to financial standing, for the reasons already set out earlier in this decision. It follows that I also find that a material change is made out in terms of finances and fitness to hold a licence for both operators (section 26(1)(h) is made out – both operators).

I find that the forgery of safety inspection records by Stuart Morgan as the sole director of SSG was a deliberate act that compromised road safety and gave the operator a clear commercial advantage. Stuart Morgan sought to suggest in his evidence that, although he had produced false safety inspection records, he had been maintaining the vehicles to an adequate standard himself. This point was made at the time of his sentencing hearing and, as the Prosecution sentencing note within the brief highlights, even if he had been inspecting them himself and asserted that they were free from defects, there is still an evident risk of harm to the public because the operator was unable to demonstrate that the vehicle was periodically inspected to ensure that it remained safe to use on the roads and there was, therefore, a degree of risk to the public. I find on the evidence before me that SSG’s vehicles were not maintained in a fit and serviceable condition and represented a clear road safety risk. The DVSA report (accepted by the operator) highlighted “clear evidence that there are no maintenance facilities or arrangements in place” and, in response to Stuart Morgan’s later statement to VE Davies that he had, in fact, been conducting the vehicle maintenance himself at his home address, VE Davies commented that when he attended there it was clear to him that there was no room for any vehicles as the building was full of other vehicles, like small passenger cars. Stuart Morgan did complete his IRTEC qualification since the offences were committed, but that was relatively recently – in April 2025. I also note the MOT test history for the operator, SSG, which is indicative of inadequate maintenance standards with an initial fail rate of 28.57% - more than double the national HGV average. Stuart Morgan’s initial fail rate on his sole trader licence is even higher at 4 times the national HGV average and the position regarding adequacy of maintenance arrangements on that licence, for which he is sole trader and transport manager, presents an even more concerning picture with the DVSA investigation report finding clear evidence of poor maintenance standards resulting in safety critical defects. The VE goes on in his report to refer to his “significant concern with the level of maintenance standards” due to the amount of safety critical defect failures and the concern that there were often advisory items and minor fails recorded in safety critical areas including for brake systems, steering and road wheels and hubs.

I find that there have been persistent operator licence failures with many of the same failures found by the DVSA on Stuart Morgan’s licence in 2021 still present this year. VE Davies noted that, in fact, the position as to brake testing records had deteriorated significantly since the previous unsatisfactory report as had the operator’s initial failure rate at MOT due to the number of safety critical defect failures. Despite assurances that were given to me by Stuart Morgan at public inquiry in 2022, he failed to follow through on those and I find that there has been a wholly inadequate response by the operator. There is no tangible evidence before me from the DVSA to indicate that, as at the date of the inquiry, Stuart Morgan had satisfactory maintenance and drivers’ hours systems in place, because he failed to provide the relevant documents to the DVSA witnesses by the deadline. There was ineffective management control and insufficient procedures in place to prevent the operator licence compliance failings found for Stuart Morgan and SSG. Stuart Morgan’s mechanical prohibition rate is 40% - significantly higher than the national HGV national average with “S” marked prohibitions issued since the last public inquiry and road safety critical defects found on vehicles in service. His MOT pass rate is very poor – his initial fail rate at MOT is 47.06%, which is more than four times the national average. Since the last public inquiry in 2022, I noted within the report included in the brief a number of fails for safety critical defects, including brake performance and steering. Similarly, SSG has a very poor mechanical prohibition rate of 50% with “S” marked prohibitions issued and for road safety critical defects found on vehicles in service, and a high initial fail rate at MOT (28.57%). There is evidence of previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigations, warning letters issued and public inquiries in 2020 and 2022 with some of the same adverse findings made then. All of these findings lead me to find that road safety and fair competition have been significantly compromised by the operators’ actions.

In his capacity as transport manager, presiding over this degree of non-compliance and having personally committed the offences for which he has now been sentenced, I find on the evidence and the balance of probabilities that Stuart Morgan failed effectively and continuously to manage the transport activities of his business, as required by legislation.

Considerations and Decisions in respect of Stuart Morgan as operator and transport manager and in respect of SSG

I have weighed up the adverse findings set out above with the positive features in this case in considering regulatory action. On the positive side, there is evidence Stuart Morgan has taken steps to improve his knowledge and skills by obtaining and IRTEC qualification for large commercial vehicles in April 2025 and that he joined a relevant trade association last year (though I noted that the RHA certificate provided within the operator’s bundle of 1 October 2025 had expired). Balancing these negative and positive features and having regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10, I consider this case to be in the “severe” category. In determining whether the operator continues to satisfy the mandatory and continuing requirement to be of good repute in section 13A(2) of the Act I have had regard to Schedule 3 to that Act and to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 on good repute and fitness.

Stuart Morgan was fully aware of the commercial advantage that he was obtaining by intentionally falsifying safety inspection records relating to one of the vehicles authorised on the SSG licence. He deliberately did so, not once, but on five separate occasions over a prolonged period between January and October 2024. The operator obtained a competitive advantage in doing so and was not operating on a level playing field with competitors. These were serious offences committed by Stuart Morgan who is a transport manager, sole trader operator and sole director of SSG, in relation to which he exercised the same responsibilities in managing the operation. The corporate veil in this case is therefore easily pierced, and I find that Stuart Morgan’s actions can also be equated with that operator company. The offences that Stuart Morgan committed were intended to deceive the enforcement authority and were an act of deception which was also prejudicial to other operators and road safety.

I must have regard to paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Act in determining the question of good repute. Paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 3 provides that I shall determine that an individual is not of good repute if that individual has more than one conviction of a serious offence, with a “serious offence” defined in paragraph 3 of the Schedule. Paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 3 provides that I shall determine that an individual is not of good repute if that individual has been convicted of road transport offences, with “road transport offences” defined in paragraph 4 to the Schedule. I invited Eliot Willis to address me on those provisions in the context of mandatory revocation of the licence held by Stuart Morgan following loss of good repute and in the context of his good repute as transport manager by reason of his convictions. I gave a very strong indication during the hearing that I considered those provisions to be relevant as convictions for serious offences and as road transport offences within the meaning of the Act. Eliot Willis declined to make any legal representations on behalf of his client in that regard, or to acknowledge that the licence held by Stuart Morgan must be revoked under section 27(1) on either financial standing or good repute grounds.

Stuart Morgan has more than one conviction of a serious offence within the meaning of Schedule 3 to the Act given the five offences that he was convicted of, and which resulted in him being sentenced in Swansea Crown Court to a community order requiring him to perform work for more than 60 hours. By virtue of paragraph 2(a) of Schedule 3 to the Act I must therefore determine that he is not of good repute. The specific offences for which Stuart Morgan was convicted are offences of falsifying safety inspection records relating to heavy goods vehicles with intent to deceive, contrary to section 173(1)(a) and (2)(e) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Those fall squarely within the definition of “road transport offences” in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Act as offences under the law of the United Kingdom relating to road transport and, in particular, they are clearly offences relating to road or vehicle safety. As such, in view of his convictions for five such offences, paragraph 2(b) of Schedule 3 to the Act also requires me to determine that he is not of good repute. I must therefore revoke his licence pursuant to section 27(1)(a) of the Act, with reference to section 13A(2)(b) and also section 13A(2)(c), given findings I have already made as to financial standing. I direct that the licence held by Stuart Morgan is revoked pursuant to adverse findings in terms of section 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(f), 26(1)(h), 27(1)(a) (with reference to sections 13A(b) and 13A(c)) and 27(1)(b) of the Act. To allow for an orderly running down of the business I direct that revocation of the licence shall take effect from 23:45 hours on 30 November 2025.

In accordance with those paragraphs of Schedule 3 to the Act, I must also find that Stuart Morgan is no longer of good repute in his capacity as transport manager and I do not consider such a finding to be disproportionate in the circumstances. He has committed serious offences of dishonesty by deliberately falsifying vehicle safety inspection records with intent to deceive the DVSA. Those maintenance documents are fundamental to the operator licensing regime and, for the reasons already set out above, his actions compromised road safety and fair competition and go directly to the question of trust. There is also the matter of operating for a significant period of time in the wrong legal entity, when he clearly knew this to be wrong. I am no longer able to trust Stuart Morgan, as operator or as transport manager, even when balancing the limited positives I have found.

SSG is no longer operating and has not done so since January 2025. I refused the application made to terminate the licence in January under section 16(4) of the Act in view of the ongoing criminal prosecutions and the adverse findings of the DVSA in the maintenance investigation report because I was considering giving a direction under section 26 of the Act. For the reasons set out in this decision I now make such a direction. I direct that the licence held by SSG shall be revoked pursuant to adverse findings in terms of sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(ca), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Act with effect from 23:45 hours on 12 November 2025.

In submissions, Eliot Willis sought to identify some features of the DVSA report on Stuart Morgan’s sole trader licence in May 2025 that were marked as “satisfactory”, and which he suggested, contrary to the suggestion that things had gone downhill since he last appeared at public inquiry, showed that there were some good points. He identified one of these as the section on “legal entity”. I find that quite extraordinary because it was very clear from the evidence, and indeed accepted by Stuart Morgan, that he had been operating in the wrong legal entity for some months before that report. Eliot Willis also suggested that the report identified no significant failings. I do not accept that, given the number of compliance failings identified and the overall assessment of the DVSA which was that only 3 of the 12 categories were marked as “satisfactory” and one of those (legal entity) clearly should not have been. There were serious failings found, including in road safety critical areas such as brake testing, driver defect reporting, prohibitions and maintenance systems. I have considered the evidence from Stuart Morgan and submissions made by Eliot Willis on the impact of disqualification on Stuart Morgan as sole trader, as transport manager and on SSG. It was submitted that the effect of disqualification of Stuart Morgan as sole trader and as transport manager would be “devastating” though there would be limited impact on SSG because that licence was no longer operating. Eliot Willis indicated that Stuart Morgan would be applying for a new licence and asked me to consider facilitating that, to enable him to do so. It was not clear whether he intended to make a new application as sole trader, though I assume not because he cannot show appropriate financial standing.

I have had regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10 in considering disqualification and have also reminded myself of the authority in David Finch Haulage (2010/29). In that case, the Transport Tribunal said: “The imposition of a period of disqualification is not a step to be taken routinely, but nor is it a step to be shirked if the circumstances render disqualification necessary in pursuit of the objectives of the operator licensing system. Although no additional feature is required over and above the grounds leading up to revocation, an operator is entitled to know why the circumstances of the case are such as to make a period of disqualification necessary…”

The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Directions state that serious cases may merit disqualification of between 5 to 10 years and severe cases may merit disqualification for an indefinite period. For a first public inquiry, the suggested starting point is between 1 and 3 years. Stuart Morgan has attended public inquiries in 2020 and in 2022 for consideration of some of the same maintenance failures, when adverse findings were made and regulatory action taken against his licence. He was given a formal warning in 2022 for ongoing maintenance compliance issues identified in an audit report and his failure to fulfil the terms of the undertaking by the specified date. However, he failed to heed that warning, resulting in some of the same maintenance failings being at issue yet again at this inquiry. I have already set out my reasoning for determining that this case is a severe case, by reference to Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10.

Taking account of all the circumstances, I consider that a period of disqualification is necessary to meet the objectives of the operator licensing regime. Furthermore, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators requires that Stuart Morgan be disqualified. Acknowledging that this is a severe case involving dishonesty by falsification of safety inspection records but giving credit for such positives that I have been able to find, I have decided to disqualify Stuart Morgan from holding or obtaining an operator licence for a period of five years. The disqualification order shall be in the terms set out at paragraphs 2 and 3 of my Decision above as regards Stuart Morgan as operator. I also direct that section 28(4) of the Act shall apply to the disqualification order made in respect of Stuart Morgan for a period of five years in that if he becomes a director of, or holds a controlling interest in, a company which holds an operator’s licence, or operates goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds an operator’s licence, then the licence of that company or person shall be liable to revocation, suspension or curtailment in terms of section 26 of the Act.

Stuart Morgan has lost his repute as transport manager, and I must therefore disqualify him from acting as such. I see no reason to depart from the period of disqualification ordered in relation to his capacity as an operator. The disqualification order shall be in the terms set out at paragraph 2 of my Decision above as regards Stuart Morgan as transport manager. Should Stuart Morgan wish to be appointed as a transport manager in the future, I direct that he must appear before a Traffic Commissioner to determine whether his repute should be restored.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

11 November 2025