Decision for Xtreme Scaffolding Ltd - Application (OC2081807)
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-06)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the North West area for Xtreme Scaffolding Services Ltd

NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 22 OCTOBER 2025

Decision

This application for a goods vehicle operator’s licence is refused under provision of section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), as the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of section 13B, 13C, and 13D of the Act.

This is an application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence in the name of Xtreme Scaffolding Services Ltd (“XSS”) seeking authorisation for 1 vehicle and 0 trailers. The listed directors are Mr. David Barson and Mr. Stephen Proctor. As with all applications, the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that they meet all relevant statutory requirements in order to obtain a licence.

Background

Mr. Barson was sole director of company number xx-xxxx-xxxx (named Xtreme Scaffolding Services Limited), which held Licence OC1072461. That licence was granted on 11 September 2007, and terminated on 31 August 2022 when the continuation fee was not paid. It transpired that the company had been dissolved in March 2021, and neither the company, nor Mr. Barson notified the Traffic Commissioner of this change to financial position as per the conditions of the licence.

Licence OC2008565, held in the name XP Scaffolding Ltd, was granted on 03 April 2018 and revoked on 02 April 2024. Its sole director on application was Mr. Stephen Procter. The licence was granted at public inquiry with no links to Xtreme Scaffolding Services Limited, or Mr. Barson, being declared. Immediately after the inquiry Mr. Barson was added as a director with the effective date recorded as the same date of the licence grant.

XP Scaffolding Ltd entered liquidation on 05 October 2023. This change to the financial position was not notified to this office as per the conditions of the licence.

A new company has been incorporated on 28 April 2022. Company Number 14076013, was incorporated in the name Xtreme Scaffolding Services Ltd (“XSS”) and application OC2069289 was submitted. That application was considered at a public inquiry dated 10 April 2024. It was deemed to be linked to XP Scaffolding Ltd by Mr. Barson and Mr. Procter. A Liquidator’s report disclosed that XP Scaffolding Ltd owed its creditors a total of £120,743.00, which included £52,787.00 owed to the HMRC and a Government Bounce Back loan of £45,000.00. Both vehicles from XP Scaffolding were purchased by XSS. Accordingly the Traffic Commissioner found that the application for XSS was a ‘phoenix application’ aimed at continuing the services of XP Scaffolding Ltd whilst avoiding its liabilities.

Additionally, a concern was raised that XSS may have made a false statement on that application, with questions regarding the potential unlawful use of vehicles [redacted] and [redacted]. Despite the applicant stating that transport needs had been met using 3.5t vehicles, both larger vehicles were identified using ANPR as being used after the liquidation of company xx-xxxx-xxxx. Evidence also indicated that one vehicle was used without a valid MOT certificate.

That first application by XSS was therefore refused, with the presiding Traffic Commissioner commenting that, whilst the company was free to apply again, any application would need to be supported with evidence of additional training and the continued support of a transport consultant.

Due to the history of the applicant company, and its directors, XSS was called to attend a public inquiry in order to consider whether the new application could satisfy the requirements to be not unfit; to comply with the conditions and undertakings of an operator’s licence; and to have sufficient resources to support the maintenance of vehicles.

Pre-Public Inquiry

Notices calling the applicant to the inquiry were issued on 26 August 2025, by both post and email, to the given addresses. That letter sets out the date, time and location of the hearing and included case management directions to be complied with ahead of the inquiry. Those case management directions have not been complied with.

Public Inquiry

The applicant failed to attend the public inquiry. I first gave consideration as to whether the hearing should proceed. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states

“The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.”

I am advised that the calling in letters were posted to the given correspondence address and emailed to the given address for electronic communications. It is a well-established principle that an operator is required to provide the Traffic Commissioner with an address at which communications can be received and dealt with. I am informed that the Royal Mail Tracking system shows that the hard copy letter was delivered to the applicant’s given address on 29 August 2025 and signed for by “Proctor”. I conclude, therefore, that good service of the calling in letters has been made. The hearing centre staff made a final attempt to call the applicant on the day of the inquiry, but the call was not picked up.

This applicant has three user accounts for the VOL system. Mr Proctor has not logged into VOL since 05 April 2024. Mr Barson has never logged into his account since it was created in October 2023, and a third user, “Justin” last logged in on 30 July 2025 – the date of a letter from OTC advising the company that their application would be considered at a future public inquiry.

I give consideration as to whether there would be merit in adjourning the hearing and offering an alternative date to the applicant. I am mindful, however, of the expense and efforts already afforded in setting up this inquiry; the fact that another operator has been unable to use this slot – for example, to consider an alternative application – ; and that my hearing room is currently booked up until January 2026 therefore any adjournment would not be brief.

This is not a business that is actively pursuing its application, and I have no reason to believe that adjourning would result in positive engagement. I therefore proceed with the hearing and make a decision based upon the best available evidence before me.

Consideration

As stated above, in the case of an application the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that all mandatory requirements are satisfied. In this instance the applicant has been put on notice of my concerns. The applicant, in failing to attend, has denied itself the opportunity to provide additional information which might have allayed my concerns.

“Section 13B - Fitness”

The link to previously revoked and refused licences, and the previous failures to comply with the conditions and undertakings of an operator’s licence, are negative features towards the applicant’s fitness. A further significant issue is the failure to have proper systems to receive and respond to important communication from this office, such as the calling-in letter. Finally, I have regard to the failure to attend this public inquiry. Trust is a fundamental requirement of the licensing regime, and this applicant’s failures have created a significant absence of trust.

“Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions”

The calling-in letter set out my case management directions which included the requirement to provide evidence that this applicant has proper arrangements to comply with the requirements of Section 13C. These are often referred to as the requirement to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the operator’s licence. It includes, among other things, arrangements to comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours and the facilities and arrangements to maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.

These matters go to the very heart of road safety and fair competition. This is relevant to this application on account of the previous failures of this company – ultimately resulting in the revocation of a previous licence and the failure to satisfy a Traffic Commissioner at a previous public inquiry. Most recently, the absence of evidence provided ahead of the inquiry, as set out in the call-up letter, invites me to conclude that the evidence has not been made available because the proper arrangements are not in place. I have regard to the fact that this is not a new business. This is an active scaffolding firm which is already transporting goods albeit out of scope (I expect) of operator licensing.

“Section 13D – Financial Resources”

The calling-in letter also requested up-to-date evidence of access to appropriate financial resources. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 2 states, at paragraph 33.

“The Senior Traffic Commissioner has taken account of the financial requirements determined by the Secretary of State and directs the traffic commissioners to adopt the financial levels indicated for restricted licences in the table attached. The Senior Traffic Commissioner also directs that checks should be applied equally to restricted licence holders.

(The table referenced sets out a requirement to evidence a level of £3,100 for the first vehicle and £1,700 for each additional vehicle)”

Paragraph 37. Continues:

“Applicants for a restricted goods licence may be asked to show that arrangements for maintenance are not prejudiced by a lack of finance. As this can be key to ensuring safe operation the Senior Traffic Commissioner has indicated that this is not a disproportionate requirement and has directed that there should be checks on the availability of finance unless the applicant can show an alternative arrangement.”

Despite the direction to provide evidence of financial resources ahead of the inquiry the applicant has failed to provide that evidence.

Decision

This application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence is refused under provision of Section 13(5) as the applicant has failed to satisfy the following requirements:

a. Section 13B – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant is not unfit to hold an operator’s licence.

b. Section 13C – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant has the appropriate arrangements to meet the requirements to hold an operator’s licence.

c. Section 13D – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by reason for the applicant having insufficient financial resources for that purpose.

“Section 13B - Fitness”

I give the direction in respect of Section 13B in consideration of 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd which sets out that Fitness is not a significantly lower hurdle than good repute and links fitness to trust. That decision invites a Traffic Commissioner to consider the ‘Priority Freight Question’ in cases relating to Restricted licences. The question, posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight is, “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?”. In this case I answer in the negative. As set out above, this is an operator with long standing issues, and the failure to attend this public inquiry is such that I have little positive features against which to balance.

I do note, in the positive, that both directors attended OLAT training in May 2025. This does not, however, outweigh the negative features or satisfy the concerns set out above. Accordingly, I do not trust this applicant to comply with the licensing regime and I therefore do not consider it fit to hold an operator’s licence.

“Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions, & Section 13D – Financial Resources”

In respect of Sections 13C and 13D I make adverse findings as the applicant has failed to provide me with evidence that the requirements are met. The burden lies with it to satisfy me that it meets the relevant statutory requirements, and it has failed to do so. I note particularly the failure to provide any evidence of systems and procedures and the failure to provide evidence of current access to the required financial resources.

Section 13(5) of the 1995 Act directs that, if the traffic commissioner determines that any of the requirements that the commissioner has taken into consideration are not satisfied the commissioner must refuse the application (emphasis is my own). Accordingly, this application is refused.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

27 October 2025