Case Details
Decision Date: 8 January 2025;
Published: 16 January 2025 by the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England (GOV.UK)
Outcome:
The operator’s licence was revoked with immediate effect under section 26.
Both M&S Scaffolding (Cumbria) Ltd and its director Simon Lofthouse were disqualified from holding or applying for an operator’s licence for seven years under section 28 (GOV.UK).
Commissioner’s Reasoning
-
Cannot be trusted:
The Commissioner concluded that the company showed systemic non‑compliance, especially by repeatedly failing to respond to correspondence from his office and DVSA (GOV.UK). -
Serious negative features with no positives:
There were no positive features in the operator’s record to counterbalance the negatives. This triggered the question: does the operator’s conduct warrant being put out of business? The answer was yes. -
Revocation over suspension:
While suspension or curtailment were options, the Commissioner considered them insufficient because the operator could not be trusted to comply even during a suspension. Revocation was deemed necessary for public safety and fair competition. -
Length of disqualification:
Based on Senior Traffic Commissioner guidance (Statutory Document 10, paragraph 108), disqualification was applied at the higher end of the range due to persistent failures and the seriousness of non-compliance.
Key Lessons for Operators
Respond Promptly: Failing to engage with official audits, notices, or correspondence is viewed very unfavourably.
Maintain Compliance Records: Audits, training logs, vehicle checks, MOTs—all should be documented and up to date.
Contextual Awareness: A history of repeated breaches increases regulatory scrutiny—especially for firms with previous public inquiries or warnings.
Trust is Critical: Operators must show systems to ensure future compliance—otherwise, regulators assume non‑compliance will continue.
Risk of Severe Sanctions: A licence revocation and long-term personal disqualification can destroy a business.
Public Safety Priority: Protecting the public and compliant operators takes priority over leniency for repeat offenders.
Summary Table
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Inquiry Date | 7 January 2025 |
| Revocation | Licence revoked immediately (s. 26) |
| Disqualification | Firm & director banned for 7 years (s. 28) |
| Main Failings | Non-response to correspondence, repeated non-compliance |
| Regulator’s View | Operator not trusted; no positive evidence to balance negative issues |
| Enforcement Rationale | Revocation over suspension to protect public interest |
Final Thought
This case serves as a stark warning: persistent non-compliance and a failure to engage when contacted by authorities can lead to immediate licence loss and long-term disqualification. Operators must demonstrate active compliance, strong record-keeping, and responsiveness to regulation requests. Liaison, documentation, and transparency are not optional—they are essential.
