1. LANGDON TRANSPORT LIMITED
1.1 OH1033904
2. PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL
2.1 29 JUNE 2021
3. BACKGROUND
Langdon Transport Limited is the holder of a Standard National goods vehicle operator licence authorising the use of twenty-seven vehicles and twenty-seven trailers from five operating centres in Devon and one in Cornwall. The sole director is Steven Roy Langdon, the transport manager is Ian Hurt.
The operator was called to public inquiry in April 2017 following a DVSA investigation which identified that the operator had in possession and had been using more vehicles than authorised. A variation application to increase authority was also heard at that inquiry. My decision and reasons from that inquiry is here:
The operator has attracted a significant number of roadworthiness prohibitions over the past 5 years. Four have been annotated by the issuing officer as signifying, in his opinion, a significant failure of the maintenance systems. I have further seen today a prohibition relating to an insecure load of Bandvulc tyres which was repeated five weeks later. These matters question the operator’s commitment to compliance.
It is accepted that the operator has being operating more vehicles than authorised. I note in the positive that never more than 27 have been on the road at once but that is different from being in use. In relation to alleged failure to use the authorised operating centre, the operator’s representative has advanced an argument about vehicles being “in use” when parked awaiting loading or unloading. The operator simply cannot have it both ways.
I find that the current authorisation of the site at 38 Central Avenue is inappropriate and has the potential to create a dangerous situation. I am offered undertakings to address this.
Two undertakings given at the public inquiry in 2011, and relied upon by DTC Harrington in allowing the licence to continue, have not been complied with, in recent times at least and I can find no evidence of any compliance.
This is an operation where there has been sustained non-compliance over a number of years in relation to overall operating authority, use of vehicles in a dangerous condition, and failure to comply with undertakings given at public inquiry. In the positive, an application was made in 2014 and appears to have stagnated, never more than 27 vehicles have been driven at any one time, and the operator has volunteered to reduce authorisation at 38 Central Avenue to 10 vehicles and 2 trailers. I am offered and record relevant undertakings. I therefore make the following decisions:
The variation application to increase overall authority by 5 vehicles is refused
The application to add operating centres only at Rowlands Yard, PL21 9EE and Kelly’s of Bodmin, PL31 2RJ and to remove 2 North Road, PL21 9PE is granted
All the regulatory matters set out in the call-in letter under Section 26 of the Act are made out. Having refused the authority increase, and noting this is a real-life reduction in fleet operation from today’s level, I find it unnecessary to take further regulatory action and issue the operator with a formal warning.
Having accepted a relevant undertaking, I make no adverse finding in relation to either transport manager.
The following undertakings are recorded:
Authorised vehicles will enter and exit the operating centre at 38 Central Avenue in forward gear
Authorised vehicles will not be parked on the road when in the vicinity of the operating centre at 38 Central Avenue
Both transport managers will attend 2-day TM CPC refresher courses and a certificate of attendance will be sent to OTC Bristol by 31 July 2017
Current undertakings 1, 3, 4 and 5 are removed. The periodicity of current undertaking 2 is amended to 6 months with the first audit due to be submitted to OTC Bristol by 31 July 2017
On 28 May 2020, an immediate prohibition was issued to trailer C238309 for an insecure load of 16 pallets of empty metal drums. Following this prohibition, a Maintenance Investigation was instigated by Vehicle Examiner Lee Balsdon, which revealed a number of shortcomings and concerns resulting in an unsatisfactory report:
The section for brake performance on the preventative maintenance inspection reports (PMI) were often found left blank with 79% of inspections showing no satisfactory brake performance assessment
Roller brake tests conducted were usually performed unladen, with no brake tests taking place after a brake component had been replaced
21% of the PMI’s showed the inspection frequency had been extended
The PMIs showed one instance of missing milage, one instance of roadworthiness declaration not being signed and one instance of all check items left blank
No robust vehicle-off-road system in place
Defects detectable by the drivers were found on 57% of the PMIs
The driver defect system was found to be not clear and robust
Since the last maintenance investigation two immediate prohibitions had been issued, one being S Marked
During the visit two delayed prohibitions were issued
Training on load security of new drivers not found to be adequate due to the vast amount of prohibitions issued
Steven Langdon responded to the shortcomings from the report and made assurances that brake tests would take place with the vehicle laden with all the documentation attached to the PMI reports. A new vehicle-off-road system had been implemented. Drivers had received more training on their responsibilities regarding load security, and those who received prohibitions had been disciplined for their failings. Further training would also be given on driver walk around checks. The driver defect reporting system in place had been strengthened and would be monitored closely. The prohibitions that were issued during the visit had been rectified.
The Transport Manager Ian Hurt suggested a number of the shortcomings were due to him being ill over the last year. A new member of staff has been employed since the investigation to help provide support for Mr Hurt in order for him to focus solely on his role as Transport Manager.
When the case was referred to me, I noted that the operator had continued to add and remove vehicles from the licence on a daily basis. I directed that the operator’s self-service account be disabled with the operator offered an opportunity to specify the vehicles it intended to use. I noted the response from Ian Hurt reported that operating only twenty-seven vehicles meant that three drivers would have to be laid off. I also noted that the operator had apparently not complied with the undertaking for six-monthly audits.
I called the operator to public inquiry on the following grounds:
under Section 26(1)(b) of the Act, breach of licence conditions;
under Section 26(1)(ca) of the Act, drivers had been issued with fixed penalty notices;
under Section 26(1)(e) of the Act, maintenance arrangements;
under Section 26(1)(f) of the Act, vehicles not kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting; failing to comply with the audit undertaking accepted at the 2017 public inquiry;
under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act, that the operator was not of sufficient financial standing, good repute or professional competence, or that the transport manager is not exerting continuous and effective control.
Mr Ian Hurt was called in his own right to consider his good repute as transport manager.
4. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
Steven Langdon, Ian Hurt and Katie Bishop attended for the operator, represented by Paul Atkinson, transport consultant. I was provided with copies of compliance audits undertaken on 28 July 2017, 27 March 2018, 8 November 2018, 15 May 2019, 26 February 2021 and 6 May 2021. I also saw evidence that future audits had been booked.
Proceedings were recorded and a transcript can be produced as required. I do not record all the evidence here, only that which is necessary to come to a decision.
4.1 Preliminary matters
Finance was discussed in private with only Mr Langdon and Mr Atkinson present. Evidence was provided of changes to banking arrangements. I agreed an initial period of grace until the end of July 2021.
4.2 Opening submissions
Mt Atkinson told me that the operator offered a further audit undertaking and that two had already been booked, for July 2021 and January 2022. A second transport manager would be appointed within 12 weeks and would undergo specific training. I was also offered undertakings in relation to training for Mr Langdon and Mr Hurt, laden brake testing and not using the online self-service system to change vehicles.
4.3 The evidence of Steven Langdon
Mr Langdon told me that the company was part of the Palletforce network and had a number of other sizeable clients. Around two thirds of the work was pallets. The pallet industry had exploded.
Mr Langdon thought that the movement of vehicles on and off the licence had ceased following the last public inquiry. Phillip Allen was the senior manager at that time and it must have been him who undertook the transactions. It had increased from September 2020. Fed Ex wanted increased vehicles to cope with the growth following lockdown. In hindsight, they should have walked away but it was “very difficult to walk away from some work”. They had never had more vehicles on the road at any one time than authorised. Breaking the law was the last thing that he wanted to do.
In relation to the audits, Cara Northam, the former finance director, had been responsible for compliance with the undertaking. He had been told that the audits had been done and hadn’t known that they had not been submitted. Ms Northam had said that they had the four audits done but they didn’t need to be forwarded to my office.
The root cause of the issues that brought them back to public inquiry had been the loss of Ms Northam and then his own health. Mr Langdon wanted to find another director of the company. He had advertised for a senior transport manager so that Mr Hurt could oversee maintenance and Ms Bishop would have senior support. He had advertised several times but not found a suitable candidate.
If the licence was revoked, around fifty staff would stand to lose their jobs. Drivers could easily find another job but that was not the case for warehouse and admin staff. It would also be personally devastating and Mr Langdon had given personal finance guarantees. Fed Ex needed 30 days notice of withdrawal and the Palletforce contract was for 12 months notice.
A reduction in the number of vehicles would mean that the business would have to drop some work. The vehicles were in use 5½ days a week. Mr Langdon had undergone no recent training. He just wanted everything correct and legal. Ms Bishop was very knowledgeable on drivers hours and working time. She was authoritative and a breath of fresh air.
The finance director had left and not been replaced which needed to happen. Drivers were available if the authority was increased. Two were in the yard driving forklifts. They had been hiring in people with vans to manage the workload.
I asked Mr Langdon for an explanation of furlough payments showing on the bank statements. He needed to investigate and promised to let me have the information within a few days. Mr Langdon could provide no explanation for the failure to reduce vehicle operation following the 2017 public inquiry. I suggested that the pattern of changes appeared to be that a number of 7.5 tonne local delivery vehicles were taken off the licence in the evening and replaced with an artic for the overnight trunking run. In the morning, the situation was reversed. Mr Langdon accepted that was what happened. He could provide no explanation for continuing to operate in that way following the 2017 inquiry. I noted that the audit reports highlighted the need to increase vehicle authority. Mr Langdon told me that Dave Robbins Transport Consultants had caused the audits to be delayed but could provide no evidence.
I asked Mr Langdon about his plans to retire. He told me that he would put everything in order, appoint a managing director and start to step down. The appointment of a managing director could be given as an undertaking. I asked about the VOL user who had made the 35,000 vehicle transactions who was called “Brian Langdon”. There wasn’t a “Brian Langdon” but someone called Brian had previously been a manager.
4.4 The evidence of Katie Bishop, proposed future Transport Manager
Ms Bishop told me that she started at Langdons in 2017. Her grandfather had previously been a transport manager. She had sat the transport manager exam and would get results at the end of July. She had been involved in the recent audits and in booking them for the future. The DVSA Vehicle Examiner had seen the work she was doing on drivers hours and working time and had been content.
4.5 The evidence of Ian Hurt, Transport Manager
Mr Hurt had been in the industry for thirty years, joining Langdons ten years ago running the general haulage side (ie, not the pallet operation). Mr Langdon had paid for him to do his CPC. Whilst still in the business, Phil Allen had been the main Transport Manager. Mr Hurt wasn’t involved in the transport management at that time and was just a name on the licence. He had made sure vehicles were downloaded on time and producing the drivers infringements. His main role was finding work for the mainstream haulage lorries. This included assigning the loads to the vehicles and the drivers.
When Mr Allen left in January 2018, Mr Hurt was left trying to do both jobs, getting the work then planning maintenance and driver debriefing. Sam Adams had been recruited in January 2021 and had taken over the role in haulage. Ms Bishop undertook admin support and Mr Hurt booked maintenance, took the vehicles in for inspection and ensured that it was done properly.
They now had their own brake tester. Every brake test is now loaded. There are two technicians who are both qualified. Drivers use the VehoCheck app on the phones which are issued to them. The app leads the drivers through the walk-around check and it is then transferred to Mr Hurt. The re-torquing procedure had been upgraded. A tyre provider undertakes a fleet check every four weeks.
To address load security, Mr Hurt kept an eye on the drivers every morning. In relation to the prohibition carrying Bandvulc tyres, they were loaded at the factory and the trailer sealed. The driver can’t get in the back. If there is an obvious bulge, the drivers put the straps right around the trailer. On the latest prohibition, they were new tyres. They now used walking-floor trailers for tyres and those had rigid sides. Every time a driver contacted the office, they were asked to confirm that the load was strapped.
Mr Hurt had been unwell during 2020 and that restricted his ability to go in to the office for about eight months. Since the appointment of Mr Adams, the business was running compliantly. A new senior transport manager would provide another set of eyes.
Mr Hurt confirmed that he had been named as a transport manager since 2016 and had attended the previous public inquiry. He remembered the conversation about operating more vehicles than authorised. He had misunderstood the system and thought that day vehicles could be removed and replaced with night vehicles. It was he who used the login credentials of the fictional Brian Langdon. He noted that the top right corner of the VOL screen displayed “Brian Langdon”. Back in 2017, it was the pallet side of the business which removed the day vehicles and replaced them with the night vehicles. It was Phil Allen who removed the vehicles in 2017 and replaced them the next day.
Brake tests had been undertaken laden since the visit of Vehicle Examiner Balsdon. Mr Hurt had been responsible for PMIs during the period when VE Balsdon found twenty-one percent to be inspected late. He could not explain why fifty-seven percent of PMIs included driver-reportable defects. He could not explain why the vehicle prohibited by VE Balsdon for a loose wheel nut did not have wheel nut indicators in line with the company’s policy.
In relation to avoidance of bridge strikes, the company vehicles had height markers. Drivers routed themselves. Most of the work was routine so drivers would know the routes. Most new trucks had satnav built-in and drivers had their own satnavs. Drivers were not idiots and had to use common sense.
4.6 Closing submissions
The missing audit reports had been provided. The first audit report did not show any real concerns so there was no reason not to send them in. The company had not been chased for them by my office. The most recent audit seemed to say that they have everything right at the moment.
Mr Langdon is sole director so it was likely that I would pierce the corporate veil. Mr Langdon had concluded that he needed a second director within six months. The business was very committed to the pallet network. Finances did not support the variation as of today.
I noted that the situation was serious and that I had not made any decision but it may be that a change of overall control of the business would be appropriate. It was agreed that information on the furlough payments and submissions on the company’s future would be provided within fourteen days.
5. CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
This operator has been to multiple public inquiries, the most recent being before me in 2017. A key matter at issue at that time was the operator using the self-service facility to add and remove the same vehicles on repeated occasions. At pages 53 to 65 of the brief is a list of vehicles that have been specified on the licence since the last inquiry. There are six hundred and seventy-eight. The operator is authorised for twenty-seven. The last public inquiry was on 20 April 2017. On 24 April, five vehicles were specified on the licence. Of those, one was removed the same day, two were removed on 25 April and the final two on 27 April. Thirty vehicles were specified in the calendar month following the inquiry. Eight of those were on the licence for only one day.
In the month before 2 March 2021, the date on which the operator’s access to the system was disabled in line with the Terms & Conditions of the service, vehicles were specified fifty-two times. What appears to be the most recent addition to the fleet, a tractor unit WX20LAA, has been on and off the licence thirty-two times between 28 October 2020 and 2 March 2021 which is nearly twice a week. From my analysis of the vehicle movements, the operator has had consistently between three and five more vehicles than authorised between the public inquiry in April 2017 and the service being removed on 2 March 2021. Mr Langdon admitted in evidence that the pallet network day vehicles, rigids, are removed each evening to be replaced by the overnight trunkers. Mr Hurt notified in writing that a reduction to using only twenty-seven vehicles meant that three drivers had to be laid off.
Section 5(9) of the Act is clear that vehicles cannot be specified and de-specified on a licence for business convenience. It states (emphasis added):
(9) Where it comes to the knowledge of a traffic commissioner that a vehicle specified in an operator’s licence (“the first licence”) —
(a) has ceased to be used under the licence (otherwise than because of a fluctuation in business or because it is undergoing repair or maintenance), or
(b) is specified in another operator’s licence,
he may vary the first licence by directing that the vehicle be removed from it.
The changing of the specified vehicles on the online system is actually an application to a Traffic Commissioner to make that change. I do not have authority to remove a vehicle purely because it needs repair or because the business need this evening is a different one from the business need during the day. It follows that the actions of the operator have been unlawful for a long time and should have ceased once that point was made by me at the public inquiry. The operator has clearly used more goods vehicles than authorised. Section 6 of the Act has been breached, I make an adverse finding under Section 26(1)(e) and I attach significant weight.
The maintenance matters raised by Vehicle Examiner Balsdon are serious. It is clear that, at the time of his visit, the driver defect reporting system had failed with fifty-seven percent of preventative maintenance inspections identifying defects that should have been picked up by the driver. Twenty-one percent were carried out late. Seventy-nine percent were absent a brake test of any kind – and the operator has their own brake tester.
Load security continues to be a significant issue with two immediate prohibitions since the last inquiry. I noted the following in my reasons in 2017 “I have further seen today a prohibition relating to an insecure load of Bandvulc tyres which was repeated five weeks later.” An immediate prohibition was issued on 18 January 2021. The cause was a total failure to secure a load of Bandvulc tyres in a curtain-sided semi-trailer. The curtains were not structural and designed only to keep out the weather, not keep in a trailer-load of tyres. There has not been progress.
The roadworthiness encounter history is at pages 106 – 224 of the brief. It is not possible to get the full picture as would normally be the case. That is because the pandemic caused DVSA to change its enforcement policy and practice. Inspections at the roadside were conducted for most of 2020 without the examiner entering the cab. Defects that would normally attract a delayed prohibition were re-classified as an inspection notice. It is not possible from the description of the defect on the report to ascertain whether the “Inspection Notice” items should have attracted a delayed prohibition. So the position is more likely than not under-stated. Having said that, the situation is still poor with fourteen prohibition notices issued at a prohibition rate of twenty-one percent. To put that in context, DVSA’s random fleet compliance surveys identify a prohibition rate of eleven percent for vehicles and fifteen percent for trailers.
Little seems to have changed in the last four years. Mr Atkinson asks that I attach weight to the latest audit report and update. I am unable to do so. This operator’s compliance resembles the teeth on a saw. When under the spotlight of a DVSA investigation or a public inquiry, improvements can be made. Once the spotlight is turned off, compliance rapidly drops away. Section 26(1)(f) is made out.
The bank statements showed regular money in for furlough payments. Furlough is a government scheme designed to protect the jobs of workers who cannot work due to the Covid-19 pandemic. By email, Mr Atkinson provided the following analysis:
Driver one – furloughed for 3 months due to COPD, on and off furlough since march 2020 due to government guidelines changing for when they could and couldn’t work and had so self isolate.
Driver two – furloughed from the beginning of January to the beginning of April, driver was pregnant at the time and was advised by her midwife to no longer carry on working due to her condition and she was very high risk.
Driver three – lost the permeant run of work that was being covered for a three-month period, this has now again started.
Driver four – furloughed for three weeks in January 2021 due to having covid 19 and unable to work.
I requested further information. As a result, I was satisfied that drivers 1 and 2 were entitled to the furlough payments. I asked what driver 3’s “permanent run of work” was and why this was lost due to Covid. I further asked why driver 4 was paid furlough and not statutory sick pay.
I have been provided no further evidence in relation to drivers 3 and 4. In relation to driver 4, the official guidance says:
If you’re self-isolating or on sick leave
The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is not intended for short term absences from work due to sickness.
Short term illness or self-isolation should not be a consideration when deciding if you’ll be furloughed.
If your employer wants to furlough you for business reasons and you are currently off sick, they are eligible to do so as with other employees. In these cases, you should no longer receive sick pay and would be considered a furloughed employee.
If you are on sick leave or self-isolating as a result of coronavirus, you may be able to get Statutory Sick Pay (SSP). The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme is not intended for short-term absences from work due to sickness.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme
Absent any further explanation, I find that the furlough claims for drivers 3 and 4 were unlawful. Furlough is a new concept for most and it is incumbent upon employers to make proper enquiries as to eligibility before claiming public funds. I have no evidence that happened here so I find the claims to be fraudulent. That strikes at the heart of the operator’s good repute.
This operation does have positive features. The initial MoT pass rate is in line with the national average and the final fail rate is rather better than it (although the final fail rate can often be a feature as much of an ATF’s willingness to allow or facilitate a repair as it is the seriousness of the defect). Ms Bishop shows promise as a young transport manager and is likely to have learned much from the public inquiry process. The audits that were promised at the last inquiry were undertaken albeit not on time and not submitted. The current position shows that compliance can be achieved when it needs to be. The problem I have with a traditional balancing exercise is that these rather factual positives are rather over-shadowed by basic dishonesty.
Having made findings of fact on the individual behaviours, I turn now to consider the good repute first of the transport manager and then of the operator.
Ian Hurt attended the public inquiry in 2017 where he heard the need to curtail the operation such that it could operate within its existing authorisation. He told me that he hadn’t done so because he was, at that time, just a name on the licence. That is not what a transport manager is. By signing the TM1 form on 30 November 2016, he declared that he would exert continuous and effective management over the transport operation. Either he did, and he was fully aware of the ongoing licence abuse, or he did not, in which case he was in dereliction of his duties. But the abuse of the licence has in fact worsened since Mr Hurt became sole transport manager with the thirty changes a month growing to fifty.
Mr Hurt prays in aid his poor health in 2020. But Mr Hurt at no point notified me that he was not undertaking his duties as I would have expected and as do many other conscientious transport manager. He has been sole transport manager since January 2018. He told me, in effect, that he could not cope with the job following the resignation of the previous transport manager until assistance was provided in January 2021, three years later.
Mr Hurt has been responsible for persistent and deliberate operation well in excess of the licence authority and for a sustained period of time. He attended the public inquiry in 2017. He knew what needed to be done. He did not do it. His good repute as a transport manager is lost. It will be some time before he can demonstrate to any Traffic Commissioner that he is capable of the compliant operation of a vehicle fleet. It follows that this operator is without professional competence and a period of grace for such a non-compliant business would be inappropriate. Section 27(1) is made out in relation to professional competence.
Steven Langdon has been to public inquiry, I believe, because the records are old, five times. That is astonishing but there is no limit to the number of times that a Traffic Commissioner might provide another chance. In 2011, he offered undertakings to Deputy Traffic Commissioner Harrington for a variety of matters upon which Miss Harrington relied in allowing the licence to continue. I found in April 2017 that he had failed to deliver those undertakings. I relied upon very similar undertakings when I allowed the licence to continue in 2017. Whilst some of the audits appear to have happened, if not on time then sporadically, they were not submitted to my office. My staff do not have the time to act as an operator’s “bring-forward” system so no reminders were issued. Mr Langdon blames a former director he had employed. The failure to comply with the binding licence undertaking appears not to trouble him over-much.
In 2017, I did not curtail or suspend the licence because I concluded the inquiry believing that the operator would itself curtail its operation to live within its authority. Within only a few days, the urge to operate more vehicles than authorised overtook Mr Langdon and he was back to business as usual, or as usual looks in Langdon Transport. Since this limited company licence was granted, during which time authority has been for between 15 and 27 vehicles, there have been an absolutely staggering eleven thousand, eight hundred and thirty-two vehicles specified. There are thirty-five thousand vehicle transactions. The reason that the number of transactions is not double the number of vehicle specifications is because vehicles have been removed so quickly after having been specified that the system has dealt with it as an error and no disc has been issued. This is licence abuse on an industrial scale over many years. Can I trust an operator who operated over authority 4 days after having been told not to at a public inquiry? No. This operator has competed unfairly with the compliant industry for years. It most thoroughly deserves to be put out of business. The good repute of Steven Langdon is forfeit. Mr Langdon is sole director of Langdon Transport Ltd and so it is appropriate that I pierce the corporate veil. The good repute of Langdon Transport Ltd is also lost. Section 27(1) is further made out in relation to repute.
The total serial abuse of the licensing system is such that I find a disqualification order, and a lengthy one, is appropriate. My starting point is the period between the two public inquiries during which the abuse continued. However, the fraudulent furlough matters cause me to increase that by a further 12 months. However, in contrast to my decision above, should Langdon Transport Ltd present itself under genuine fresh control, I believe it could operate compliantly and so I make no order of disqualification against the limited company.
Finances are not satisfied but there is a well-advanced and viable plan. Whilst Section 27(1)(a) is made out in relation to finance, in relation to the current authorisation, I grant a period of grace until 20 October 2021.
I cannot grant a period of grace to an application and the variation application. I am not satisfied that the transport manager is capable of managing the increase and there are not demonstrably stable arrangements for maintaining vehicles and trailers in a fit and serviceable condition. Section 17(5), by reference to Sections 13A and 13C, fails to be satisfied and the application is refused.
This is a large operation with some fifty people relying on it for their income. Submissions were helpfully provided by Mr Atkinson for the transfer of the business to a new owner. Those proposed arrangements are not immediately convincing and will require careful scrutiny but, on first reading, they appear to have merit. Given that the business is currently, if perhaps only briefly, at the top of the compliance saw-tooth, I defer the coming in to effect of the revocation to allow a fresh business to present itself.
The operator is free to apply for a fresh self-service login and to have access restored. However, I put it on clear notice that any further re-use of previously specified vehicles will be seen as holding this decision in contempt and make the chances of any future application succeeding extraordinarily difficult.
6. DECISION
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 27(1), loss of good repute and loss of professional competence, the licence is revoked. The licence is further revoked pursuant to my findings under Section 26(1)(e), persistently operating over authority, and Section 26(1)(f), persistently failing to keep vehicles and trailers fit and serviceable. Noting the size of the operation and to give an opportunity to preserve employment, revocation will take effect from 20 October 2021.
Mr Steven Roy Langdon is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in any traffic area until 20 October 2026.
Mr Ian Hurt has lost his good repute as transport manager and is disqualified from acting as such for three years.
Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner
20 July 2021
Credit: Source link
