Bankfoot No More... again...
Oct. 6th, 2009 04:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
suzyscottdotcomFurther to my post about yesterday's journeys, don't forget, there is always someone worse off than yourself. Bankfoot Buses had their O-licence revoked, and their management prohibited, but they appealed, claiming not to have had an invitation to the Public Enquiry.
Mr Macartney also found that Bankfoot Buses Ltd lied to the Transport Tribunal and lied to him at public inquiry. He found that the company obtained a second public inquiry by lying about the alleged failure to provide adequate notice of the first public inquiry.
With effect from 23:59 on 15 October 2009, the company and both directors, Mr Stuart Newing-Davis and Mrs Sarah Ann Newing-Davis, will be banned indefinitely from holding or applying for a public service vehicle operator licence throughout the UK.
A fine of £1,650 is payable to Scottish Ministers by 23:59 hours on 15 October 2009.
The full text of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision is below. Details of his consideration of the evidence and his decision can be found from paragraph 44.
REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
BACKGROUND
1. Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd which trades as Bankfoot Buses has held a Standard National Public Service Vehicle operator licence since 16 May 2007. The current authority is for 3 vehicles, with 3 discs on issue. The operating centre, which is also the correspondence address, is at Arran House, Arran Road, Perth PH13 DEZ. The Directors of the company are Mr Stuart Newing-Davis and his wife Mrs Sarah Ann Newing-Davis. Mr Stuart Newing-Davis is also the Transport Manager. The operator, and also the Transport Manager, were called to Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 to consider regulatory action against the operator’s licence. The good repute of the operator and of the Transport Manager was under consideration, as were concerns about financial standing and alleged failings in the operation of registered local services. The operator was supplied with copies of adverse reports from a Traffic Examiner, from the Public Transport Manager of Perth and Kinross Council and also from Stagecoach Scotland East.
2. A written decision was produced by the Traffic Commissioner which was subsequently appealed to the Transport Tribunal. The Transport Tribunal, held an appeal hearing on 15 May 2009, as a result of which it remitted the issues back for re-hearing to a Deputy Traffic Commissioner.
3. The operator was called to a fresh Public Inquiry to consider regulatory action by letter dated 31 July 2009. All parties were notified that the re-hearing would take place on Friday 21 August 2009 at 10.00 a.m. in Edinburgh. The operator was reminded, by letter on 17 August 2009, that there were concerns about financial standing and that evidence of satisfactory finances was required.
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
4. Mr Geoffrey Littlewood, Transport Consultant appeared to represent the operator. The Director and the Transport Manager, Mr Stuart Newing-Davis was present on behalf of the company. Mr Littlewood introduced witnesses during the course of the Public Inquiry, who were Mrs Menzies and Mr Feasby, both employees of the company. Perth and Kinross Council were represented by Mr Warrington, Public Transport Manager. VOSA was represented by Mr Cobben, Traffic Examiner.
THE EVIDENCE
Mr Cobban – Traffic Examiner
5. Mr Cobban read from his prepared statement. In summary, following receipt of an allegation that the operator was using unauthorised vehicles to carry passengers, an investigation was undertaken. A PSV vehicle belonging to the operator was stopped by Mr Cobban on 30 July 2008 in Aberfeldy. The driver was unable to produce his full complement of tachograph charts, apart from the tachograph chart for that current day. This was the subject of considerable evidence and some cross-examination. I accept that all the tachograph charts were correctly produced subsequently and I place no weight on this particular issue in this decision.
6. The Traffic Examiner noticed that the coach, which was carrying clients of Splash (a rafting company) was displaying a colour photocopy of an operator’s licence disc, in other words a counterfeit disc which was a forgery.
7. A Director of Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd was interviewed on that same day in which he stated that he had applied for an increase to 7 vehicles to his licence. He stated that a variation increase was discussed by telephone on several occasions with the Leeds Licensing staff during April 2008. It was claimed by the Director, Mr Newing-Davis, that he had gained the impression that the grant of this licence increase was imminent, as a result of which he had commenced operation using a counterfeit ‘O’ licence disc produced on a colour photocopier. This was admitted by Mr Newing-Davis under caution and confirmed during the course of the Public Inquiry on 21 August 2009.
8. The examination of tachograph charts belonging to the company revealed that at least 9 different vehicles had been used to service the contract with Splash. It was the view of the Traffic Examiner that this contract (Splash) could not be done with only 3 discs on issue. The frequent use of more than 3 authorised vehicles was evident from the end of April or early May until 30 July 2008, when a false ‘O’ licence disc was detected at Aberfeldy on 30 July 2008.
Mr Warrington – Public Transport Manager for Perth and Kinross Council
9. Substantial evidence was given, in much detail, by Mr Warrington. He referred to tables which he had produced regarding registered services and the monitoring which took place of these registered services. He also outlined the background and the history of Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd t/a Bankfoot Buses.
10. In summary, it was the view of Mr Warrington that during the period from 3 October 2008 to 17 December 2008, Bankfoot Buses displayed a blatant disregard for their commitment to operate registered bus services. It was the opinion of Mr Warrington that potential inconvenience was caused to local bus users. It was also the opinion of Mr Warrington that the introduction of free services using vehicles not displaying PSV operator’s discs disregarded the Council’s guidance. Bus stop allocations had been ignored causing traffic congestion. The use of vehicles in Stagecoach type livery was questionable. Mr Warrington was of the view that this all raised questions about the good repute of Bankfoot Buses.
11. Perth and Kinross Council undertook monitoring on 19 August 2008, 20 August 2008, 21 August 2008, 30 August 2008 and 2 September 2008. It became apparent that Services 1A, 4A and 74 were not operating. There was considerable discussion and dialogue with the operator as a result. There was also a concern about the operator using vehicles without a PSV operator’s disc and also inviting passengers to make a cash donation in a bucket for a restoration fund instead of paying fares as would be normal.
12. In addition, there were concerns that buses were being run in Stagecoach livery, altered to read Stag Coach with the ‘e’ in the middle of Stagecoach having been removed. This was observed and commented upon by Perth and Kinross Council on more than one occasion, including monitoring on 19 August 2008.
13. Discussion had taken place with the operator about the need for normal operation of Services 1A, 4A and 74. It had been claimed by the operator that these services were not operating due to driver shortages, it was also claimed that driver problems meant that the several runs on Service 22 had been “missed”.
14. There were fresh observations in the period 3 October to 17 December 2008 which included noting the non-operation of Service 22A on 14 December 2008 and the non-operation of Service 74 between 3 October 2008 and 7 November 2008.
15. However, “free” buses were being provided on Thursday evenings in December 2008. Donations were being collected for an unregistered charity in a bucket. Refreshments, including mulled wine, were being made available on board the Bankfoot free bus.
Cross-examination by Mr Littlewood
16. Mr Littlewood accepted the general content of Mr Warrington’s reports, which were extensive. Mr Littlewood commented that the dispute with Stagecoach was to some extent, “tit for tat”.
17. Mr Littlewood accepted that the variation increase for extra discs taking the fleet from 3 discs to 7 discs had not been authorised. Mr Warrington agreed that this proposed expansion may have had been a consideration for Bankfoot Buses in seeking to expand their operation and to introduce extra registered services, although he pointed out that they did not have sufficient discs on issue at the time services were registered.
Mr Newing-Davis – Director/Transport Manager
18. Mr Littlewood suggested to Mr Newing-Davis that some of his actions had displayed a disregard for road transport law. Mr Newing-Davis agreed with this view.
19. In response to my questions, as the evidence from Mr Newing-Davis appeared to gloss over some of the issues I was able to clarify some key points. In summary, Mr Newing-Davis agreed that the services described by Perth and Kinross Council in table 1, page 5 of their report, did not operate. He claimed that Service 22 did operate to some extent, but he was not able to give me specific dates or names or vehicles numbers for the two occasions when he felt he had an excuse.
20. Mr Newing-Davis also agreed that he had been operating a larger fleet than he was authorised to have, in anticipation of a variation increase being granted. He stated that he had 21 buses and 17 drivers in possession at one stage, but only 3 discs.
21. Mr Newing-Davis had some difficulty explaining why 21 buses and 17 drivers made it reasonable that he was unable to run some of his registered services. Mr Newing-Davis described a great deal of trouble which was ongoing as drivers left his employ over a period.
22. Mr Newing-Davis was unable to identify the date when the false disc was created using a colour photocopier. He stated that he was unable to guess but it was sometime between 18 May 2008 and 30 July 2008. It was suggested that a forged disc was being used for the period 18 May 2008 to 30 July 2008, but Mr Newing-Davis was unable to give me more detail although he stated that “nobody was comfortable with running the disc as it was”. He stated that he could have run his number 22 service with 3 discs, but it was made clear to him that the Council would have also liked to see his registered services 1A, 4A and 74 continuing to run.
23. The issue of the mysterious disappearance of documents alerting Mr Newing-Davis to the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 was explored in some detail. The chronology is:-
• 30 September 2008 – a letter was sent to the operator by first class post warning that a Public Inquiry was about to be called.
• 19 December 2008 – a letter was sent to the operator calling the company to Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009.
• 19 December 2008 – a letter was sent to the Transport Manager (Mr Newing-Davis) calling him to Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 to consider his good repute.
• The duplicate brief containing all the documentation, which was in two large bound bundles, was sent to the operator by special delivery. These bundles were signed for on 20 December 2008.
• 11 January 2009 – A supplementary bundle of evidence was sent to the operator with a covering letter confirming that the Public Inquiry was taking place on 22 January 2009 – this was sent by first class post.
• 22 January 2009 – the Public Inquiry took place in the absence of the operator.
24. Mr Newing-Davis acknowledged receipt of the letter on 30 September 2008, warning him of the Public Inquiry. Mr Newing-Davis denied receiving any of the other correspondence sent on either 19 December 2008 or 11 January 2009. He also stated that the duplicate brief which was sent to him on 19 December 2008 by recorded delivery, which was signed for on 20 December 2008, had never been received by him. He stated that the duplicate brief, a substantial amount of documentation contained in two separate bound bundles, was leaked to him in February 2009 by an unnamed individual in Perth and Kinross Council, whose premises are one and a half miles from the operator.
25. When pressed by me, Mr Newing-Davis confirmed that he had not received any of the documents sent to him on 11 January 2009. He agreed that none of his other mail appeared to have gone astray, although he does receive a lot of mail every day.
26. Mr Newing-Davis agreed that he had misled the Transport Tribunal on appeal on 15 May 2009 when it was claimed that he could have attended the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009, had he been given the opportunity, as he could have been present within half an hour.
27. The actual journey time from his premises to central Edinburgh was estimated by Mr Newing-Davis as at least an hour and a quarter on a good day. Mr Newing-Davis agreed with me that no Scottish bus operator would estimate a journey between north of Perth (where Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd have their premises) and central Edinburgh less than that. He agreed with my suggestion that it would be a journey of at least an hour and a half in normal circumstances.
28. Mr Newing-Davis was unable to describe how he had no knowledge of the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009, in view of the additional factor that it is normal for between 10 and 12 transport solicitors and transport consultants to notify operators that they are available to represent them for a fee at Public Inquiry, once it is published that a Public Inquiry is to be convened. I pointed out that I had recently had a complaint from an operator that he had been contacted by in excess of 40 different firms offering their services to represent the operator at Public Inquiry. These offers alone must have alerted the operator to the forthcoming date of a Public Inquiry.
29. Mr Newing-Davis also claimed that he had never been supplied with the track and trace details of the special delivery concerning the duplicate brief containing details of the Public Inquiry sent to him on 19 December 2008. This would have enabled the operator to trace the missing documents and would have been helpful in providing a copy of the signature provided on receipt of these documents. It was claimed that, despite repeated requests, the track and trace had not been produced. Mr Newing-Davis emphasised that his MP had been asking for them on a regular basis and he had not been supplied with them either.
30. The Public Inquiry adjourned for lunch.
Mrs Menzies
31. Mrs Menzies gave evidence, much of which concerned the dispute with Stagecoach and alleged harassment. Much of her evidence was hearsay. Mrs Menzies was invited to restrict her evidence to what she actually saw and did herself.
32. Mrs Menzies gave instances of alleged harassment, but was unable to support this with any form of documentation, dates, times, names or vehicle registrations.
33. Mrs Menzies was formerly employed within the bus operation, but is now employed as a cleaner with Bankfoot Buses.
34. In view of Mrs Menzies inability to provide firm detail about the alleged harassment by Stagecoach, I attach no weight to her evidence and I will not consider it any further.
Mr Feasby
35. Mr Feasby gave evidence describing his employment with Bankfoot Buses as a driver. Mr Feasby confirmed that the uniform worn by the drivers employed by Bankfoot Buses was similar to that of Stagecoach, but it was the opinion of Mr Feasby that this was not with the purpose or intention of deceiving the public that this was a Stagecoach vehicle.
36. The issue of a bus, or buses, being used in Stagecoach livery was explored, based on photographs which had been supplied and were in the duplicate brief possessed by the operator and Mr Littlewood. These photographs were apparently taken on 16 August 2008. Mr Newing-Davis was invited to explain how these photographs could have been taken on this date when he had earlier given evidence that the vehicle in the livery of Stagecoach with Stag Coach painted on the front and sides of the vehicle was only used, according to his testimony, on 19 May 2008 for 24 hours or less. Yet the photographs clearly showed the vehicle on 16 August 2008, on several occasions, with different drivers.
37. Mr Newing-Davis stated that he must have been guessing when he supplied the date of 19 May 2008 but, when invited to provide a firm dates. he was unable to recall more detail.
38. Mr Newing-Davis was unable to recall when he purchased that vehicle, although he had earlier given testimony that the vehicle had been used for the first 24 hours of ownership of the vehicle. Mr Newing-Davis claimed that he must have made an error over the dates involved for the first use of the bus which appeared to be operated by Stagecoach when it was lettered Stag Coach, but he was unable to supply further details as he could not remember, nor had he made any note of the times or dates when this vehicle had been used. He was unable to help me further on that issue.
39. It was pointed out to Mr Littlewood that the issues which were now being explored were contained in the duplicate brief sent to the operator on 19 December 2008, signed for by the operator on 20 December 2008. This duplicate brief was acknowledged to be in the possession of the operator by at least February 2009, even if the duplicate brief had not been correctly delivered as was claimed. Therefore, the information which was being explored on 21 August 2009 was information which had been in the possession of the operator for many months.
40. The next issue was that the duplicate brief which had been referred to during evidence in substantial detail had apparently gone missing. It had been mentioned on more than one occasion that there had been an inability to trace the reason for this missing brief, nor could the tracking numbers be supplied, despite the involvement of a local Member of Parliament. In fact substantial detail about this duplicate brief was supplied to Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd. The tracking numbers for the special delivery of the duplicate brief on 20 December 2009 were supplied to the operator in substantial detail by e-mail from Colin Flower on 30 January 2009. This included the tracking numbers and a copy of the signatures supplied at the time. This information was given directly to the operator on 30 January 2009. It follows that the statements that this information was not available recently and also that it was not available to a Member of Parliament in March 2009 and also that it was not available to the operator in August 2009 although requested, must be false.
41. Mr Littlewood stated in his closing address that the operator was a lovable rogue and that Mr Newing-Davis was unaware of the serious nature of some of his actions at the time.
42. Mr Littlewood also asked the Traffic Commissioner to take into account that the operator had spent half a million pounds which he had invested in Bankfoot Buses, although he was unable to give specific detail of this. He also accepted that there had been operation without authority. This was done in anticipation of a variation increase for which the operator had applied but had not been granted at the time of operation.
43. Mr Littlewood also pointed out that he was not one of the consultants or solicitors offering to represent Bankfoot Buses at Public Inquiry on the first occasion in January 2009, as he only wrote an unsolicited letter once (which was presumably for the second Public Inquiry which took place on 21 August 2009) but Mr Littlewood stated that he was one of the best. Mr Littlewood concluded by stating that, having covered the potential impact of revocation of the licence or a reduction in the size of the licence by effectively curtailing it, the operator had learned his lesson and would like to be granted just one disc in order to run Service 22.
FINDINGS OF FACT
44. I find as a fact that the operator was warned of a Public Inquiry by letter on 30 September 2008. This was subsequently confirmed in detail in a letter dated 19 December 2008 calling the operator to Public Inquiry and another letter dated 19 December 2008 calling the Transport Manager to the same Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009. A duplicate brief in two large bound bundles was sent by special delivery on 19 December 2008 and signed for at the operator’s correspondence address on 20 December 2008. In addition, the operator was sent a supplementary bundle of evidence, with the date of the Public Inquiry being repeated in a letter dated 11 January 2009. This was sent by first class post. In addition, the operator must have been contacted by a number of transport solicitors and transport consultants seeking to provide their services to represent the operator at Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009. I find as a fact that the operator must have known about the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009.
45. The operator appeared at an appeal hearing in front of the Transport Tribunal and claimed:-
a. That notification of the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 had not been received and therefore the operator was unaware of the Public Inquiry and,
b. The operator could have attended the Public Inquiry within half an hour, had the opportunity been made available.
46. I find as a fact that the operator has deceived the Transport Tribunal by lying about lack of knowledge of the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 and also lying to the Transport Tribunal that it would have been possible to travel from the north of Perth where Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd had its operating centre and offices to central Edinburgh within half an hour. No Scottish bus operator or person with local knowledge would have accepted such a statement. The operator himself stated that it would be at least one and a quarter hours on a good day. It is risible that a bus operator should make such a statement about a journey of this nature from their own operating centre to the Scottish capital.
47. I find as a fact that this operator was using a forged ‘O’ licence disc in Aberfeldy on 30 July 2008. It is likely that this forged disc, and possibly others, were being used between the period early May 2008 and 30 July 2008. Tachograph charts showed that 9 different vehicles were being used on this contract and the operator could not have possibly done this work within the existing 3 discs on issue.
48. I find as a fact that this operator has failed to operate registered services 1A, 4A and 74 on dates monitored by Perth and Kinross Council on page 5 of the statement. The operator has also failed to operate Service 22 satisfactorily without reasonable excuse.
49. I find as a fact that the operator has operated “free buses” on Service 1, collecting money in a bucket but not charging fares. This service was causing congestion, blocking bus stands and was interfering with other traffic in the Perth area by providing an unauthorised frequent service.
50. I find as a fact that this operator has been running a bus masquerading as Stagecoach, using lettering Stag Coach on the front and sides of the vehicle. This has caused confusion to the general public and is an extraordinary action which appears to have taken place, not just for 24 hours, but for a period of some months.
51. I find that this operator has lied to me at Public Inquiry about the dates of the use of the Stag Coach bus. I find that this operator has lied to me at Public Inquiry about non receipt of various documents and bundles sent to the operator. I find that the operator has lied to the Transport Tribunal about the non receipt of documents and the ease with which the operator could have attended the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009. I find that the operator has lied to me about the difficulty in obtaining detail of the tracking receipt for the missing documents sent on 19 December 2008. I find that this operator has lied to me about the involvement of the local Member of Parliament and the failure of Traffic Area Office staff to provide details of the tracking receipt. I find that this operator has lied to me about the involvement of his wife, Mrs Sarah Newing-Davis, when it was emphasised that she was not a Director until I produced documentary evidence showing that she was the company secretary and the only other Director.
52. I am obliged to weigh in the balance the positive and negative issues concerned. This is the first Public Inquiry involving this company. The operator is described by his own transport consultant representing the firm at Public Inquiry as, “a lovable rogue”. There is no doubt that this operator employs a number of staff and has been trying to carry on a business providing a service to the public. During the course of evidence it became apparent that this operator knows the local area and has established a rapport with a number of local people and he is trying to provide a service. It is also apparent that the operator feels frustration at the difficulties being experienced with a rival operator as a competitor. However, the inability of the operator to provide me with any firm evidence of unfair activity or harassment, which has been claimed, leaves me little choice but to discount this particular issue. This operator has chosen to interfere with another operator, which may have been “tit for tat”, which I will also discount.
53. However, this operator is not Robin Hood providing free buses and collecting money in a bucket whilst providing mulled wine. The operation of registered local services has been dreadful. The voluminous evidence from Perth and Kinross Council documents in detail their evident frustration in trying to explain to this operator how important it is to run registered services regularly, punctually and responsibly.
54. I have heard from Mr Littlewood about the potential impact of any adverse determination. Mr Littlewood did not address me on the issues of finance which were expressly included in the original letter calling the operator to Public Inquiry dated 19 December 2008 and emphasised again in a letter sent on 17 August 2009 concerning the financial evidence which was needed for the Public Inquiry on 21 August 2009. Although the operator has not asked for financial evidence to be heard ‘in camera’, I direct that financial evidence shall be attached to my decision as an annex and that the financial information is not for public consumption. I find as a fact that this operator has failed to satisfy me as to adequate financial standing on the evidence provided to me for the existing licence for 3 vehicles.
DETERMINATION
55. I have to consider the operator’s good repute, and also that of the Transport Manager. I am obliged to revoke the operator’s licence if I find against good repute. This requirement is undertaken by a balancing exercise in order to decide whether it is proportionate and appropriate that this operator should be put out of business, with the consequent effect on staff employed by the operator. I have been provided with details of the impact of any decision I take.
56. On the negative side, there is the evidence of the use of a forged disc, of operating PSV’s in excess of the authorisation and also failing to display valid operating licence discs.
57. There is the evidence of a substantial failure to operate registered services. Although this issue has been explored in great detail, I have not been offered a reasonable excuse.
58. There is the provision of free services, when bizarrely the operator was unable to man the existing registered services properly or to run them reliably and promptly. These free services were providing interference within the city of Perth and this was clearly causing great frustration to Perth and Kinross City Council. I applaud Perth and Kinross City Council for their great efforts to mediate and to explain to Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd what the requirements of a reliable operation should be.
59. There is evidence of failure to operate registered services which have been accepted by the operator. There is clear evidence of the use of a forged disc and there is clear evidence of the use of a bus in Stagecoach livery, apparently for many months.
60. Importantly, the operator has obtained a second Public Inquiry by lying about the alleged failure to provide adequate notice of the first Public Inquiry. The operator has lied to the Transport Tribunal and the operator has lied at Public Inquiry on 21 August 2009.
61. Having balanced all of the evidence, I have come to the overwhelming conclusion that the operator, has lost its good repute. The Transport Manager, Mr Newing-Davis, has also lost his good repute and the licence must be revoked, which is the only proportionate and appropriate determination in the circumstances. Under Section 17(1) and Schedule 3 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute and the licence is revoked.
62. Under Section 17(1) and Schedule 3 of the Public Passengers Vehicles Act 1981 the operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of professional competence and the licence is revoked.
63. Under Section 17(1) and Schedule 3 of the Public Passengers Vehicles Act 1981 the operator has failed to satisfy as to financial standing and the licence is revoked.
64. I turn to the issue of disqualification. Stuart Newing-Davis is a Director of this firm and has lied to avoid a Public Inquiry in January 2009. He has lied to the Transport Tribunal and he has lied at Public Inquiry on a second occasion on 21 August 2009. He has been described as “a lovable rogue”. He is not Robin Hood. He has committed forgery, he has lied to the regulatory authorities and appeal authority and he has failed to run a bus service sensibly and responsibly, much to the frustration of the local City Council. Mrs Newing-Davis has refused to attend Public Inquiry, although she must have been aware of the determination of her disqualification at the previous Public Inquiry. Instructions have been given that she was not a Director, which proved to be false only after close questioning and production of documents to demonstrate that she was the company secretary and one of the two Directors of the company from 2004 to date. In her absence, I am unable to separate her responsibility from that of her fellow Director, Mr Stuart Newing-Davis.
65. There is no place in the industry for those who attempt to deceive Traffic Commissioners at Public Inquiry or the Transport Tribunal at an appeal hearing, or when it involves the forgery of ‘O’ licence discs. This company and both of its Directors are unfit to be involved in the industry. They are disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in this or any other Traffic Area indefinitely. Should any party wish to be re-admitted to the industry in the future, it will be necessary to apply to the Traffic Commissioner for permission to do so before any application is considered.
66. This operator has failed to run local services 1A, 4A and 74 reliably and punctually and this has been conceded by the operator. It is plain to me that, under Section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, a penalty of £550 for each disc in possession (3 x £550), making a total of £1,650 is appropriate in the circumstances.
67. The orders for revocation and disqualification will come into effect at 23.59 hours on 15 October 2009. The penalty of £1,650 is payable to Scottish Ministers by 23.59 hours on 15 October 2009.
Perth Bus Company Banned Indefinitely Following Traffic Commissioner Appeal
06 October 2009 09:00
Office of the Traffic Commissioner (Scotland)
A small Perth based company, Bankfoot Buses Ltd, have been banned indefinitely and fined £1,650 after they appealed an earlier ruling made by the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland, Joan Aitken.
Bankfoot Buses Ltd was again found to have:
• Interfered with services run by rival company Stagecoach
• Used a forged operator licence disc
• Failed to display valid operator licence discs
• Failed to operate registered services without reasonable excuse
• Interfered with bus stop arrangements in Perth City Centre to the detriment of road safety, traffic management and public expectations
Mr Macartney also found that Bankfoot Buses Ltd lied to the Transport Tribunal and lied to him at public inquiry. He found that the company obtained a second public inquiry by lying about the alleged failure to provide adequate notice of the first public inquiry.
With effect from 23:59 on 15 October 2009, the company and both directors, Mr Stuart Newing-Davis and Mrs Sarah Ann Newing-Davis, will be banned indefinitely from holding or applying for a public service vehicle operator licence throughout the UK.
A fine of £1,650 is payable to Scottish Ministers by 23:59 hours on 15 October 2009.
The full text of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision is below. Details of his consideration of the evidence and his decision can be found from paragraph 44.
REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PTARMIGAN TRANSPORT SOLUTIONS LTD
T/A BANKFOOT BUSES PM1069676
BACKGROUND
1. Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd which trades as Bankfoot Buses has held a Standard National Public Service Vehicle operator licence since 16 May 2007. The current authority is for 3 vehicles, with 3 discs on issue. The operating centre, which is also the correspondence address, is at Arran House, Arran Road, Perth PH13 DEZ. The Directors of the company are Mr Stuart Newing-Davis and his wife Mrs Sarah Ann Newing-Davis. Mr Stuart Newing-Davis is also the Transport Manager. The operator, and also the Transport Manager, were called to Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 to consider regulatory action against the operator’s licence. The good repute of the operator and of the Transport Manager was under consideration, as were concerns about financial standing and alleged failings in the operation of registered local services. The operator was supplied with copies of adverse reports from a Traffic Examiner, from the Public Transport Manager of Perth and Kinross Council and also from Stagecoach Scotland East.
2. A written decision was produced by the Traffic Commissioner which was subsequently appealed to the Transport Tribunal. The Transport Tribunal, held an appeal hearing on 15 May 2009, as a result of which it remitted the issues back for re-hearing to a Deputy Traffic Commissioner.
3. The operator was called to a fresh Public Inquiry to consider regulatory action by letter dated 31 July 2009. All parties were notified that the re-hearing would take place on Friday 21 August 2009 at 10.00 a.m. in Edinburgh. The operator was reminded, by letter on 17 August 2009, that there were concerns about financial standing and that evidence of satisfactory finances was required.
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
4. Mr Geoffrey Littlewood, Transport Consultant appeared to represent the operator. The Director and the Transport Manager, Mr Stuart Newing-Davis was present on behalf of the company. Mr Littlewood introduced witnesses during the course of the Public Inquiry, who were Mrs Menzies and Mr Feasby, both employees of the company. Perth and Kinross Council were represented by Mr Warrington, Public Transport Manager. VOSA was represented by Mr Cobben, Traffic Examiner.
THE EVIDENCE
Mr Cobban – Traffic Examiner
5. Mr Cobban read from his prepared statement. In summary, following receipt of an allegation that the operator was using unauthorised vehicles to carry passengers, an investigation was undertaken. A PSV vehicle belonging to the operator was stopped by Mr Cobban on 30 July 2008 in Aberfeldy. The driver was unable to produce his full complement of tachograph charts, apart from the tachograph chart for that current day. This was the subject of considerable evidence and some cross-examination. I accept that all the tachograph charts were correctly produced subsequently and I place no weight on this particular issue in this decision.
6. The Traffic Examiner noticed that the coach, which was carrying clients of Splash (a rafting company) was displaying a colour photocopy of an operator’s licence disc, in other words a counterfeit disc which was a forgery.
7. A Director of Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd was interviewed on that same day in which he stated that he had applied for an increase to 7 vehicles to his licence. He stated that a variation increase was discussed by telephone on several occasions with the Leeds Licensing staff during April 2008. It was claimed by the Director, Mr Newing-Davis, that he had gained the impression that the grant of this licence increase was imminent, as a result of which he had commenced operation using a counterfeit ‘O’ licence disc produced on a colour photocopier. This was admitted by Mr Newing-Davis under caution and confirmed during the course of the Public Inquiry on 21 August 2009.
8. The examination of tachograph charts belonging to the company revealed that at least 9 different vehicles had been used to service the contract with Splash. It was the view of the Traffic Examiner that this contract (Splash) could not be done with only 3 discs on issue. The frequent use of more than 3 authorised vehicles was evident from the end of April or early May until 30 July 2008, when a false ‘O’ licence disc was detected at Aberfeldy on 30 July 2008.
Mr Warrington – Public Transport Manager for Perth and Kinross Council
9. Substantial evidence was given, in much detail, by Mr Warrington. He referred to tables which he had produced regarding registered services and the monitoring which took place of these registered services. He also outlined the background and the history of Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd t/a Bankfoot Buses.
10. In summary, it was the view of Mr Warrington that during the period from 3 October 2008 to 17 December 2008, Bankfoot Buses displayed a blatant disregard for their commitment to operate registered bus services. It was the opinion of Mr Warrington that potential inconvenience was caused to local bus users. It was also the opinion of Mr Warrington that the introduction of free services using vehicles not displaying PSV operator’s discs disregarded the Council’s guidance. Bus stop allocations had been ignored causing traffic congestion. The use of vehicles in Stagecoach type livery was questionable. Mr Warrington was of the view that this all raised questions about the good repute of Bankfoot Buses.
11. Perth and Kinross Council undertook monitoring on 19 August 2008, 20 August 2008, 21 August 2008, 30 August 2008 and 2 September 2008. It became apparent that Services 1A, 4A and 74 were not operating. There was considerable discussion and dialogue with the operator as a result. There was also a concern about the operator using vehicles without a PSV operator’s disc and also inviting passengers to make a cash donation in a bucket for a restoration fund instead of paying fares as would be normal.
12. In addition, there were concerns that buses were being run in Stagecoach livery, altered to read Stag Coach with the ‘e’ in the middle of Stagecoach having been removed. This was observed and commented upon by Perth and Kinross Council on more than one occasion, including monitoring on 19 August 2008.
13. Discussion had taken place with the operator about the need for normal operation of Services 1A, 4A and 74. It had been claimed by the operator that these services were not operating due to driver shortages, it was also claimed that driver problems meant that the several runs on Service 22 had been “missed”.
14. There were fresh observations in the period 3 October to 17 December 2008 which included noting the non-operation of Service 22A on 14 December 2008 and the non-operation of Service 74 between 3 October 2008 and 7 November 2008.
15. However, “free” buses were being provided on Thursday evenings in December 2008. Donations were being collected for an unregistered charity in a bucket. Refreshments, including mulled wine, were being made available on board the Bankfoot free bus.
Cross-examination by Mr Littlewood
16. Mr Littlewood accepted the general content of Mr Warrington’s reports, which were extensive. Mr Littlewood commented that the dispute with Stagecoach was to some extent, “tit for tat”.
17. Mr Littlewood accepted that the variation increase for extra discs taking the fleet from 3 discs to 7 discs had not been authorised. Mr Warrington agreed that this proposed expansion may have had been a consideration for Bankfoot Buses in seeking to expand their operation and to introduce extra registered services, although he pointed out that they did not have sufficient discs on issue at the time services were registered.
Mr Newing-Davis – Director/Transport Manager
18. Mr Littlewood suggested to Mr Newing-Davis that some of his actions had displayed a disregard for road transport law. Mr Newing-Davis agreed with this view.
19. In response to my questions, as the evidence from Mr Newing-Davis appeared to gloss over some of the issues I was able to clarify some key points. In summary, Mr Newing-Davis agreed that the services described by Perth and Kinross Council in table 1, page 5 of their report, did not operate. He claimed that Service 22 did operate to some extent, but he was not able to give me specific dates or names or vehicles numbers for the two occasions when he felt he had an excuse.
20. Mr Newing-Davis also agreed that he had been operating a larger fleet than he was authorised to have, in anticipation of a variation increase being granted. He stated that he had 21 buses and 17 drivers in possession at one stage, but only 3 discs.
21. Mr Newing-Davis had some difficulty explaining why 21 buses and 17 drivers made it reasonable that he was unable to run some of his registered services. Mr Newing-Davis described a great deal of trouble which was ongoing as drivers left his employ over a period.
22. Mr Newing-Davis was unable to identify the date when the false disc was created using a colour photocopier. He stated that he was unable to guess but it was sometime between 18 May 2008 and 30 July 2008. It was suggested that a forged disc was being used for the period 18 May 2008 to 30 July 2008, but Mr Newing-Davis was unable to give me more detail although he stated that “nobody was comfortable with running the disc as it was”. He stated that he could have run his number 22 service with 3 discs, but it was made clear to him that the Council would have also liked to see his registered services 1A, 4A and 74 continuing to run.
23. The issue of the mysterious disappearance of documents alerting Mr Newing-Davis to the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 was explored in some detail. The chronology is:-
• 30 September 2008 – a letter was sent to the operator by first class post warning that a Public Inquiry was about to be called.
• 19 December 2008 – a letter was sent to the operator calling the company to Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009.
• 19 December 2008 – a letter was sent to the Transport Manager (Mr Newing-Davis) calling him to Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 to consider his good repute.
• The duplicate brief containing all the documentation, which was in two large bound bundles, was sent to the operator by special delivery. These bundles were signed for on 20 December 2008.
• 11 January 2009 – A supplementary bundle of evidence was sent to the operator with a covering letter confirming that the Public Inquiry was taking place on 22 January 2009 – this was sent by first class post.
• 22 January 2009 – the Public Inquiry took place in the absence of the operator.
24. Mr Newing-Davis acknowledged receipt of the letter on 30 September 2008, warning him of the Public Inquiry. Mr Newing-Davis denied receiving any of the other correspondence sent on either 19 December 2008 or 11 January 2009. He also stated that the duplicate brief which was sent to him on 19 December 2008 by recorded delivery, which was signed for on 20 December 2008, had never been received by him. He stated that the duplicate brief, a substantial amount of documentation contained in two separate bound bundles, was leaked to him in February 2009 by an unnamed individual in Perth and Kinross Council, whose premises are one and a half miles from the operator.
25. When pressed by me, Mr Newing-Davis confirmed that he had not received any of the documents sent to him on 11 January 2009. He agreed that none of his other mail appeared to have gone astray, although he does receive a lot of mail every day.
26. Mr Newing-Davis agreed that he had misled the Transport Tribunal on appeal on 15 May 2009 when it was claimed that he could have attended the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009, had he been given the opportunity, as he could have been present within half an hour.
27. The actual journey time from his premises to central Edinburgh was estimated by Mr Newing-Davis as at least an hour and a quarter on a good day. Mr Newing-Davis agreed with me that no Scottish bus operator would estimate a journey between north of Perth (where Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd have their premises) and central Edinburgh less than that. He agreed with my suggestion that it would be a journey of at least an hour and a half in normal circumstances.
28. Mr Newing-Davis was unable to describe how he had no knowledge of the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009, in view of the additional factor that it is normal for between 10 and 12 transport solicitors and transport consultants to notify operators that they are available to represent them for a fee at Public Inquiry, once it is published that a Public Inquiry is to be convened. I pointed out that I had recently had a complaint from an operator that he had been contacted by in excess of 40 different firms offering their services to represent the operator at Public Inquiry. These offers alone must have alerted the operator to the forthcoming date of a Public Inquiry.
29. Mr Newing-Davis also claimed that he had never been supplied with the track and trace details of the special delivery concerning the duplicate brief containing details of the Public Inquiry sent to him on 19 December 2008. This would have enabled the operator to trace the missing documents and would have been helpful in providing a copy of the signature provided on receipt of these documents. It was claimed that, despite repeated requests, the track and trace had not been produced. Mr Newing-Davis emphasised that his MP had been asking for them on a regular basis and he had not been supplied with them either.
30. The Public Inquiry adjourned for lunch.
Mrs Menzies
31. Mrs Menzies gave evidence, much of which concerned the dispute with Stagecoach and alleged harassment. Much of her evidence was hearsay. Mrs Menzies was invited to restrict her evidence to what she actually saw and did herself.
32. Mrs Menzies gave instances of alleged harassment, but was unable to support this with any form of documentation, dates, times, names or vehicle registrations.
33. Mrs Menzies was formerly employed within the bus operation, but is now employed as a cleaner with Bankfoot Buses.
34. In view of Mrs Menzies inability to provide firm detail about the alleged harassment by Stagecoach, I attach no weight to her evidence and I will not consider it any further.
Mr Feasby
35. Mr Feasby gave evidence describing his employment with Bankfoot Buses as a driver. Mr Feasby confirmed that the uniform worn by the drivers employed by Bankfoot Buses was similar to that of Stagecoach, but it was the opinion of Mr Feasby that this was not with the purpose or intention of deceiving the public that this was a Stagecoach vehicle.
36. The issue of a bus, or buses, being used in Stagecoach livery was explored, based on photographs which had been supplied and were in the duplicate brief possessed by the operator and Mr Littlewood. These photographs were apparently taken on 16 August 2008. Mr Newing-Davis was invited to explain how these photographs could have been taken on this date when he had earlier given evidence that the vehicle in the livery of Stagecoach with Stag Coach painted on the front and sides of the vehicle was only used, according to his testimony, on 19 May 2008 for 24 hours or less. Yet the photographs clearly showed the vehicle on 16 August 2008, on several occasions, with different drivers.
37. Mr Newing-Davis stated that he must have been guessing when he supplied the date of 19 May 2008 but, when invited to provide a firm dates. he was unable to recall more detail.
38. Mr Newing-Davis was unable to recall when he purchased that vehicle, although he had earlier given testimony that the vehicle had been used for the first 24 hours of ownership of the vehicle. Mr Newing-Davis claimed that he must have made an error over the dates involved for the first use of the bus which appeared to be operated by Stagecoach when it was lettered Stag Coach, but he was unable to supply further details as he could not remember, nor had he made any note of the times or dates when this vehicle had been used. He was unable to help me further on that issue.
39. It was pointed out to Mr Littlewood that the issues which were now being explored were contained in the duplicate brief sent to the operator on 19 December 2008, signed for by the operator on 20 December 2008. This duplicate brief was acknowledged to be in the possession of the operator by at least February 2009, even if the duplicate brief had not been correctly delivered as was claimed. Therefore, the information which was being explored on 21 August 2009 was information which had been in the possession of the operator for many months.
40. The next issue was that the duplicate brief which had been referred to during evidence in substantial detail had apparently gone missing. It had been mentioned on more than one occasion that there had been an inability to trace the reason for this missing brief, nor could the tracking numbers be supplied, despite the involvement of a local Member of Parliament. In fact substantial detail about this duplicate brief was supplied to Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd. The tracking numbers for the special delivery of the duplicate brief on 20 December 2009 were supplied to the operator in substantial detail by e-mail from Colin Flower on 30 January 2009. This included the tracking numbers and a copy of the signatures supplied at the time. This information was given directly to the operator on 30 January 2009. It follows that the statements that this information was not available recently and also that it was not available to a Member of Parliament in March 2009 and also that it was not available to the operator in August 2009 although requested, must be false.
41. Mr Littlewood stated in his closing address that the operator was a lovable rogue and that Mr Newing-Davis was unaware of the serious nature of some of his actions at the time.
42. Mr Littlewood also asked the Traffic Commissioner to take into account that the operator had spent half a million pounds which he had invested in Bankfoot Buses, although he was unable to give specific detail of this. He also accepted that there had been operation without authority. This was done in anticipation of a variation increase for which the operator had applied but had not been granted at the time of operation.
43. Mr Littlewood also pointed out that he was not one of the consultants or solicitors offering to represent Bankfoot Buses at Public Inquiry on the first occasion in January 2009, as he only wrote an unsolicited letter once (which was presumably for the second Public Inquiry which took place on 21 August 2009) but Mr Littlewood stated that he was one of the best. Mr Littlewood concluded by stating that, having covered the potential impact of revocation of the licence or a reduction in the size of the licence by effectively curtailing it, the operator had learned his lesson and would like to be granted just one disc in order to run Service 22.
FINDINGS OF FACT
44. I find as a fact that the operator was warned of a Public Inquiry by letter on 30 September 2008. This was subsequently confirmed in detail in a letter dated 19 December 2008 calling the operator to Public Inquiry and another letter dated 19 December 2008 calling the Transport Manager to the same Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009. A duplicate brief in two large bound bundles was sent by special delivery on 19 December 2008 and signed for at the operator’s correspondence address on 20 December 2008. In addition, the operator was sent a supplementary bundle of evidence, with the date of the Public Inquiry being repeated in a letter dated 11 January 2009. This was sent by first class post. In addition, the operator must have been contacted by a number of transport solicitors and transport consultants seeking to provide their services to represent the operator at Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009. I find as a fact that the operator must have known about the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009.
45. The operator appeared at an appeal hearing in front of the Transport Tribunal and claimed:-
a. That notification of the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 had not been received and therefore the operator was unaware of the Public Inquiry and,
b. The operator could have attended the Public Inquiry within half an hour, had the opportunity been made available.
46. I find as a fact that the operator has deceived the Transport Tribunal by lying about lack of knowledge of the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009 and also lying to the Transport Tribunal that it would have been possible to travel from the north of Perth where Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd had its operating centre and offices to central Edinburgh within half an hour. No Scottish bus operator or person with local knowledge would have accepted such a statement. The operator himself stated that it would be at least one and a quarter hours on a good day. It is risible that a bus operator should make such a statement about a journey of this nature from their own operating centre to the Scottish capital.
47. I find as a fact that this operator was using a forged ‘O’ licence disc in Aberfeldy on 30 July 2008. It is likely that this forged disc, and possibly others, were being used between the period early May 2008 and 30 July 2008. Tachograph charts showed that 9 different vehicles were being used on this contract and the operator could not have possibly done this work within the existing 3 discs on issue.
48. I find as a fact that this operator has failed to operate registered services 1A, 4A and 74 on dates monitored by Perth and Kinross Council on page 5 of the statement. The operator has also failed to operate Service 22 satisfactorily without reasonable excuse.
49. I find as a fact that the operator has operated “free buses” on Service 1, collecting money in a bucket but not charging fares. This service was causing congestion, blocking bus stands and was interfering with other traffic in the Perth area by providing an unauthorised frequent service.
50. I find as a fact that this operator has been running a bus masquerading as Stagecoach, using lettering Stag Coach on the front and sides of the vehicle. This has caused confusion to the general public and is an extraordinary action which appears to have taken place, not just for 24 hours, but for a period of some months.
51. I find that this operator has lied to me at Public Inquiry about the dates of the use of the Stag Coach bus. I find that this operator has lied to me at Public Inquiry about non receipt of various documents and bundles sent to the operator. I find that the operator has lied to the Transport Tribunal about the non receipt of documents and the ease with which the operator could have attended the Public Inquiry on 22 January 2009. I find that the operator has lied to me about the difficulty in obtaining detail of the tracking receipt for the missing documents sent on 19 December 2008. I find that this operator has lied to me about the involvement of the local Member of Parliament and the failure of Traffic Area Office staff to provide details of the tracking receipt. I find that this operator has lied to me about the involvement of his wife, Mrs Sarah Newing-Davis, when it was emphasised that she was not a Director until I produced documentary evidence showing that she was the company secretary and the only other Director.
52. I am obliged to weigh in the balance the positive and negative issues concerned. This is the first Public Inquiry involving this company. The operator is described by his own transport consultant representing the firm at Public Inquiry as, “a lovable rogue”. There is no doubt that this operator employs a number of staff and has been trying to carry on a business providing a service to the public. During the course of evidence it became apparent that this operator knows the local area and has established a rapport with a number of local people and he is trying to provide a service. It is also apparent that the operator feels frustration at the difficulties being experienced with a rival operator as a competitor. However, the inability of the operator to provide me with any firm evidence of unfair activity or harassment, which has been claimed, leaves me little choice but to discount this particular issue. This operator has chosen to interfere with another operator, which may have been “tit for tat”, which I will also discount.
53. However, this operator is not Robin Hood providing free buses and collecting money in a bucket whilst providing mulled wine. The operation of registered local services has been dreadful. The voluminous evidence from Perth and Kinross Council documents in detail their evident frustration in trying to explain to this operator how important it is to run registered services regularly, punctually and responsibly.
54. I have heard from Mr Littlewood about the potential impact of any adverse determination. Mr Littlewood did not address me on the issues of finance which were expressly included in the original letter calling the operator to Public Inquiry dated 19 December 2008 and emphasised again in a letter sent on 17 August 2009 concerning the financial evidence which was needed for the Public Inquiry on 21 August 2009. Although the operator has not asked for financial evidence to be heard ‘in camera’, I direct that financial evidence shall be attached to my decision as an annex and that the financial information is not for public consumption. I find as a fact that this operator has failed to satisfy me as to adequate financial standing on the evidence provided to me for the existing licence for 3 vehicles.
DETERMINATION
55. I have to consider the operator’s good repute, and also that of the Transport Manager. I am obliged to revoke the operator’s licence if I find against good repute. This requirement is undertaken by a balancing exercise in order to decide whether it is proportionate and appropriate that this operator should be put out of business, with the consequent effect on staff employed by the operator. I have been provided with details of the impact of any decision I take.
56. On the negative side, there is the evidence of the use of a forged disc, of operating PSV’s in excess of the authorisation and also failing to display valid operating licence discs.
57. There is the evidence of a substantial failure to operate registered services. Although this issue has been explored in great detail, I have not been offered a reasonable excuse.
58. There is the provision of free services, when bizarrely the operator was unable to man the existing registered services properly or to run them reliably and promptly. These free services were providing interference within the city of Perth and this was clearly causing great frustration to Perth and Kinross City Council. I applaud Perth and Kinross City Council for their great efforts to mediate and to explain to Ptarmigan Transport Solutions Ltd what the requirements of a reliable operation should be.
59. There is evidence of failure to operate registered services which have been accepted by the operator. There is clear evidence of the use of a forged disc and there is clear evidence of the use of a bus in Stagecoach livery, apparently for many months.
60. Importantly, the operator has obtained a second Public Inquiry by lying about the alleged failure to provide adequate notice of the first Public Inquiry. The operator has lied to the Transport Tribunal and the operator has lied at Public Inquiry on 21 August 2009.
61. Having balanced all of the evidence, I have come to the overwhelming conclusion that the operator, has lost its good repute. The Transport Manager, Mr Newing-Davis, has also lost his good repute and the licence must be revoked, which is the only proportionate and appropriate determination in the circumstances. Under Section 17(1) and Schedule 3 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute and the licence is revoked.
62. Under Section 17(1) and Schedule 3 of the Public Passengers Vehicles Act 1981 the operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of professional competence and the licence is revoked.
63. Under Section 17(1) and Schedule 3 of the Public Passengers Vehicles Act 1981 the operator has failed to satisfy as to financial standing and the licence is revoked.
64. I turn to the issue of disqualification. Stuart Newing-Davis is a Director of this firm and has lied to avoid a Public Inquiry in January 2009. He has lied to the Transport Tribunal and he has lied at Public Inquiry on a second occasion on 21 August 2009. He has been described as “a lovable rogue”. He is not Robin Hood. He has committed forgery, he has lied to the regulatory authorities and appeal authority and he has failed to run a bus service sensibly and responsibly, much to the frustration of the local City Council. Mrs Newing-Davis has refused to attend Public Inquiry, although she must have been aware of the determination of her disqualification at the previous Public Inquiry. Instructions have been given that she was not a Director, which proved to be false only after close questioning and production of documents to demonstrate that she was the company secretary and one of the two Directors of the company from 2004 to date. In her absence, I am unable to separate her responsibility from that of her fellow Director, Mr Stuart Newing-Davis.
65. There is no place in the industry for those who attempt to deceive Traffic Commissioners at Public Inquiry or the Transport Tribunal at an appeal hearing, or when it involves the forgery of ‘O’ licence discs. This company and both of its Directors are unfit to be involved in the industry. They are disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in this or any other Traffic Area indefinitely. Should any party wish to be re-admitted to the industry in the future, it will be necessary to apply to the Traffic Commissioner for permission to do so before any application is considered.
66. This operator has failed to run local services 1A, 4A and 74 reliably and punctually and this has been conceded by the operator. It is plain to me that, under Section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, a penalty of £550 for each disc in possession (3 x £550), making a total of £1,650 is appropriate in the circumstances.
67. The orders for revocation and disqualification will come into effect at 23.59 hours on 15 October 2009. The penalty of £1,650 is payable to Scottish Ministers by 23.59 hours on 15 October 2009.
T M MACARTNEY
DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Notes to editors
1. There are eight Traffic Commissioners, each supported by a number of deputies, covering eight traffic areas across the UK. The Scottish Traffic Area Office is in Edinburgh.
2. The Traffic Commissioners are statutorily independent Licensing Authorities responsible for bus, coach and goods vehicle operators and for local bus service registrations. They can also take disciplinary action against the licence of bus, coach and lorry drivers who commit road and certain other offences.
3. Prohibition notices can be issued by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) following an inspection and can prevent a vehicle from being driven until it is roadworthy.
4. Traffic Commissioners have the power to revoke, suspend or curtail a company’s licence to operate buses, coaches and lorries if they are satisfied that a company is failing to ensure that its vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition when being operated on public roads. They can also take such action if they are satisfied that a company has failed to honour certain Statements of Intent made when they applied for their operator’s licence (i.e. that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable and that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence would be observed).
5. Action can also be taken against PSV operators who fail to operate local bus services properly or in contravention of the registered particulars. Traffic Commissioners have the power to cancel or restrict local services an operator may run, or impose a fine if services have not been operated, or operated improperly, to a significant extent.
2. The Traffic Commissioners are statutorily independent Licensing Authorities responsible for bus, coach and goods vehicle operators and for local bus service registrations. They can also take disciplinary action against the licence of bus, coach and lorry drivers who commit road and certain other offences.
3. Prohibition notices can be issued by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) following an inspection and can prevent a vehicle from being driven until it is roadworthy.
4. Traffic Commissioners have the power to revoke, suspend or curtail a company’s licence to operate buses, coaches and lorries if they are satisfied that a company is failing to ensure that its vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition when being operated on public roads. They can also take such action if they are satisfied that a company has failed to honour certain Statements of Intent made when they applied for their operator’s licence (i.e. that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable and that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence would be observed).
5. Action can also be taken against PSV operators who fail to operate local bus services properly or in contravention of the registered particulars. Traffic Commissioners have the power to cancel or restrict local services an operator may run, or impose a fine if services have not been operated, or operated improperly, to a significant extent.
