天美影院

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

ASHLEY BEVERLEY LTD 鈥� OC2030956

PUBLIC INQUIRY 05 June 2025

Held at The Office of the Traffic Commissioner, Golborne

WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THE VERBAL DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

---

This Operator, Ashley Beverley Ltd, appeared before me at Public Inquiry on Tuesday 05 June 2025 and was in attendance through sole Director Mr Ashley Beverley. The Operator was represented by Mr Jared Dunbar or Dyne Solicitors. Traffic Examiner Kevin England was in attendance to provide evidence for the DVSA.

This Restricted licence was granted on 03 April 2020 and was authorised for one vehicle. The licence holding entity is Limited Company Number 11341223, previously called 鈥淐B Scaffold Ltd鈥�. Mr Beverley was appointed as a Director in 2018, shortly after the appointment of the original Directors, Mr Michael Cross and Mr Lee Shaw. Messrs Cross and Shaw resigned their positions on 12 April 2023. Prior to April 2024 there was no known history for this O0perator.

On 26 April 2024 vehicle MX08 CYS was stopped by the DVSA where it was found to be used by Ashley Beverley Ltd. The driver did not have the required licence entitlement for the type of vehicle, did not possess a digital driver card, and failed to record his driving work and rest activities.

The vehicle was laden with scaffolding and the load was insecure resulting in a fixed penalty for the driver.

Analysis of the tachograph unit found that a company card had not been locked in or downloaded for 1141 days (missing the deadline by 1051 days), and that there had been several periods of driving without a driver card throughout the 28 days prior to stop. The vehicle was an 18000kg heavy goods vehicle, and in scope of EU drivers鈥� hours rules, and yet the vehicle was consistently being driven without a digital driver card.

The driver card for director Mr Beverley was found 鈥渉anging out鈥� of slot one of the tachograph unit. This was downloaded and analysed by TE England. The analysed data identified that Mr Beverley was not recording any daily or weekly rests, and appeared to be 鈥渃ontinuously exceeding six 24 hour periods (144 hours) with insufficient weekly rest鈥�

A subsequent DVSA investigation into the Operator revealed serious and major shortcomings. There were difficulties communicating with the Operator and Mr Beverley failed to attend a PACE interview scheduled for 16 August 2024 at DVSA Featherstone.

An interview did eventually take place on 03 September 2024. Mr Beverley admitted to using a vehicle without an MOT, although appeared to be surprised that this was the case. ANPR evidence confirmed that the vehicle was on a public road with no valid MOT between 01 August and 02 September. The DVSA subsequently prosecuted the Operator for using a vehicle without a valid MOT. The Operator pleaded guilty and was issued with a fine.

The investigation further identified that the Operator had failed to update its details on the Vehicle Operator Licensing (VOL) system. This caused the difficulty experienced by the DVSA in communicating with the Operator.

In conclusion the DVSA found that Mr Beverley does not show effective control or knowledge. He had not attended a new Operator seminar or obtained any training. The Operator was unable to provide any evidence that it was undertaking licence checks, it had no driver files or training records. It had no records of analysis, infringement reports, missing mileage reports or disciplinary records.

The DVSA assessment of Mr Beverley鈥檚 card revealed that, 鈥渄uring the period 03 January to 05 February 2024 Mr Beverley was using his driver card to record, however his monthly chart only records his driving and other work. The chart shows no daily or weekly rest and during this period, Mr Beverley exceeded 6 x 24 hours periods (144 hours) recording periods of continuous work between 7 and 9 consecutive days with insufficient daily rest鈥�.

I am advised that Mr Beverley did not understand the drivers鈥� hours rules or the requirement to lock in, download, analyse and store tachograph card data which was the reason he was unable to produce data when requested by the DVSA.

Similarly, vehicle maintenance records and roller brake assessments were unavailable as the Operator had not been complying with the six weekly inspections promised on application. Taking, instead, a reactive and ad hoc approach to maintenance. Again, Mr Beverley was unaware of the relevant requirements.

When provided with a report by the DVSA which set out the concerns raised above, and being asked to provide an explanation for the shortcomings and assurances going forward, the operator failed to reply by the specified date of 25 June 2024.

A response from Mr Beverley was eventually received on 15 August 2025, almost eight weeks late. The response failed to adequately address the shortcomings and failed to provide any tangible evidence of improvements.

The poor assessment above is also reflected in the Operator鈥檚 performance at roadside encounter. The Operator has a 100% prohibition rate (against a national average of 22.81%) and has obtained a prohibition and a fixed penalty. The MOT fail rate is 50%, higher than the national average of 12.16%. It is noted that these percentages are measured against a small volume of encounters/tests.

On 20 January 2025 the Operator submitted a request to surrender the Operator鈥檚 licence. As regulatory action had already commenced, I refused that request and advised the Operator that the Public Inquiry would continue.

Within the Public Inquiry I found Mr Beverley to be honest and open about his shortcomings. This view was reflected by TE England once the initial challenges to contact the Operator were overcome.

During the Hearing Mr Beverley did not seek to challenge any of the findings of the DVSA assessment. I was informed that the Operator no longer has any vehicles in its possession. Mr Beverley accepts that his skillset is not suited to running a company or holding an Operator鈥檚 licence (hence the request to surrender), he has taken up employed work as a scaffolder, and the licence holding company, Ashley Beverley Ltd, has (as of 27 May 2025) been dissolved. I was asked to consider that Mr Beverley had not been inserting and removing his card, instead it was in for an extended period between January and March 2024, and out for a period between March and April 2024. When inserted the mode switch was not changed. This reflects his admitted lack of knowledge.

Decision

On review of the evidence before me, and the responses provided by Mr Beverley, I make adverse findings under provision of the following legislation:

鈥� 26(1)(b) 鈥� that conditions of the licence have not been complied with, namely stating that the vehicles would be given inspections at 8-week intervals;

鈥� 26(1)(c) 鈥� that during the five years ending with the date on which the direction is given there has been a prohibition of the driving of a vehicle of which the licence holder was the owner when the prohibition was imposed;

鈥� 26(1)(ca) - that during the five years ending with the date on which the direction is given there has been a fixed penalty notice issued to a servant or agent of the licence holder;

鈥� 26(1)(f) 鈥� a failure to comply with the undertaking to have appropriate systems in place to ensure that motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles, are kept fit and serviceable;

鈥� 26(1)(f) 鈥� a failure to comply with the undertaking to have appropriate systems in place to ensure drivers report promptly defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the operation of vehicles and/or trailers and that any defects are recorded in writing;

鈥� 26(1)(f) 鈥� a failure to comply with the undertaking to have appropriate systems in place to ensure records are kept (for 15 months) of all driver defect reports, all safety inspections, routine maintenance, and repairs to vehicles and trailers that these are made available on request;

鈥� 26(1)(f) 鈥� a failure to comply with the undertaking to have appropriate systems in place to ensure rules on drivers鈥� hours and tachographs would be observed;

鈥� 26(1)(h) 鈥� that since the licence was issued there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence holder that were relevant to the issue of the licence, namely that the licence holding entity has been dissolved and no longer exists in law;

鈥� 26(1)(h) 鈥� that since the licence was issued there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence holder that were relevant to the issue of the licence, namely that the licence holding holder is no longer considered to be 鈥渘ot-unfit鈥� to hold an Operator鈥檚 licence.

Positives in this case are difficult to find. I have regard to the fact that Mr Beverley has attended this Public Inquiry and accepted, without challenge, the findings of the DVSA report. I also give some credit for his acknowledgement that he is ill equipped to hold an Operator鈥檚 licence.

In the negative I find that the Operator, and Mr Beverley in his capacity as sole Director, has failed to have regard to even the most basic requirements for compliance. There was a complete absence of systems for assessing and managing risk associated with transport operations. Undertakings and conditions have not been complied with. The shortcomings identified go beyond persistent failures. Operator licensing is a proactive regime within which licence holders are required to have regard to the advice and guidance issued by the Traffic Commissioners and the DVSA. They are then expected to apply that guidance. The failure to have any systems for the detection and rectification of defects, relying on an ad hoc and reactionary approach, creates an unacceptable and avoidable risk to road safety. As does the absence of any method to record or monitor drivers鈥� hours and tachograph records. Despite this Mr. Beverley continued to benefit from holding an Operator鈥檚 licence and the opportunity for financial gain that provided. I accept however, that this is a case that falls within 鈥榓bsence of knowledge鈥� rather than 鈥榙eception鈥� 鈥� but it is an abject absence of knowledge.

On consideration of the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 starting points of regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this Operator within the 鈥淪EVERE鈥� category. I make this conclusion as I consider there have been reckless acts that have compromised road safety. Mr Beverley carried on with the business despite being completely unaware of the need for preventative maintenance, brake testing and compliance with drivers鈥� hours & tachograph rules. He did not seek any guidance or assistance. He confirmed that he did get the support of an accountant for the financial side of the business, but I find he did not make the inquiries a reasonable business owner would have in relation to the transport side.

2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd invites a Traffic Commissioner to consider the 鈥楶riority Freight Question鈥� in cases relating to Restricted licences. That question, posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight was, 鈥渉ow likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator鈥檚 licensing regime?鈥�. I answer in the negative. The evidence before me in respect of this licence, and the complete absence of any features that suggest compliance with the licensing regime, leads me to conclude that this is not an Operator that I can trust. That absence of trust extends also to Mr. Beverley as the sole Director. The subsequent question posed, by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage, is irrelevant on account of the dissolution. Accordingly, I revoke the licence with immediate effect.

Having concluded that the licence is subject to revocation, and concluded that I cannot trust Mr Beverley, I consider whether disqualification is appropriate. In respect of an Operator or Director the issue of disqualification is a discretionary matter. I am conscious of the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 guidance at paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 that such a direction is a potentially significant infringement of rights and should not be routinely ordered. I must, however, balance this against the multitude of failings identified in this case. Mr Beverley is now working for a scaffolding company, and I must have regard to the possibility, despite his assurances to the contrary, that he may wish to be appointed a Director of such a company in the future. I note that the vehicle he previously used has been transferred to the Operator licence held by his new employer.

I consider that this question, of disqualification, is required because it reflects that it was Mr Beverley who was responsible, and I remind myself of the need for regulatory action 鈥� much like justice 鈥� to be done, and to be seen to be done.

The Upper Tribunal reinforced in the appeal of 2014/024 LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS

鈥渋t does not matter whether an operator鈥檚 licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime鈥� As with any regulated environment, a duty holder cannot expect to argue ignorance of the operator licence requirements鈥�.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner reminds us, at paragraph 28 of Statutory Document 10, of the requirement to make decisions which are commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case and the purposes of the legislation, quoting 2013/046 Shearer Transport Ltd:

鈥渁ny regulatory action by the traffic commissioner should not be punishment in itself, but designed to assist in the promotion and achievement of the legislation. Clearly, such action can include an element of deterrence in order to prevent and discourage conduct that undermines the licensing regime.鈥�

The range of failures and the lack of knowledge displayed are such that conclude a period of disqualification is appropriate. I give credit to Mr Beverley only for attending the Public Inquiry and for the fact that this was his first Public Inquiry. I have also found that his failings are due to lack of knowledge rather than any attempt to deceive. If I thought deception was at play, I would be considering a longer period of disqualification.

I therefore set the disqualification at the lower end of the threshold and disqualify Mr Beverley, as the licence holder鈥檚 sole Director, from holding or obtaining an Operator鈥檚 licence for a period of two years. The disqualification will expire at 23:45 on 05 June 2027.

I trust that this has been a learning experience for Mr Beverley. It may be the case that he never wishes to obtain an Operator鈥檚 licence again, but if he does, he should be prepared to appear before a Traffic Commissioner and set out how he has been rehabilitated to the degree that a future application might be granted.

Driver Conduct Action

(redacted)

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

11 June 2025