天美影院

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

UPPAL EURO TRANSPORT LTD 鈥� OF1070933

AND

AJMEET SINGH UPPAL 鈥� TRANSPORT MANAGER

AND

DRIVER: SUKHPREET KAUR UPPAL

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER鈥橲 DECISION

Background

Uppal Euro Transport Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Director is Ajmeer Singh Uppal, who is the nominated Transport Manager.

There is one Operating Centre at Arkwright Hill Farm, Lutterworth Road, Cosby, Leicestershire LE9 1RH. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Ajmeer Uppal at 8 Bramcote Road, Wigston; Chatfields and J A Commercial at 6-weekly intervals. The Director was under the impression that he had removed the in-house notification,

It is a matter of public record the licence commenced on13 July 2007 with Ajmeer Singh Uppal as an internal transport manager. The Operating Centre was then at Trafalgar Global Ltd, Ross Walk Business Park, Ross Walk, Leicester LE4 5HH. An application was lodged on 6 September 2024 to change to Arkwright Hill Farm, which was granted from 10 October 2024. It emerged during the hea5ring that the vehicle was only rarely kept at the authorised Operating Centre and that during the working season it was normally kept at customer premises. 聽

Mr Uppal is also named as the external transport manager for OD1136645 held by Ajvinder Singh Samra trading as Neachley Transport 天美影院, devoting 20 hours per week to that role. That licence was granted with Mr Uppal in that role from 24 April 2015. It authorises the operation of 6 vehicles and 6 trailers from J K Fresh Produce, Long Lane, Neachley, Shifnal. A Neachley Transport Ltd (14218462) was incorporated on 6 July 2022 and dissolved on 5 December 2023 as a result of compulsory strike off (page 45). Ajvinder Singh Samra was the sole director, with a registered address was 211 St Pauls Road, Smethwick which is the same as that recorded on the current sole trader licence.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 3 July 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of the Director, Ajmeer Singh Uppal, who was also called in his position as Transport Manager, accompanied by Sukhpreet Uppal.

Issues

The Public Inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:

• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements (below).

• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements relating to conditions on the licence, including inspection intervals.

• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers鈥� hours and tachographs).

• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change:

• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 27(1)(a) 鈥� effective and stable establishment, good repute, financial standing; and a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3

• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 28 鈥� Disqualification.

Mr Uppal was called to consider whether he had exercise effective and continuous management and whether that might impact his repute as Transport Manager, under section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3.

Mrs Uppal was also called to a conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether she should be permitted to continue to rely on her vocational driving entitlement.

Companies House records suggest that the company status is 鈥榓ctive 鈥� proposal to strike off鈥� with both the accounts and confirmation statement overdue. The operator was directed to lodge financial and other evidence in support 14 days before the inquiry, with compliance documentation to be supplied direct to DVSA, at least 21 days before the hearing date. As of 24 June 2025, nothing had been submitted to DVSA, and no financial evidence received, despite two reminders.

On 1 July 2025 I was notified that the Case Management Directions had not been complied with and DVSA had not received any of the required evidence, despite that chaser sent by Office on 23 June 2025. The operator telephoned and suggested that the evidence would be emailed the afternoon before the hearing. Mr Uppal confirmed that he would be attending with the Driver, Mrs Uppal. On 1 July 2025 my office received 9 separate emails and attachments. Those included copies of bank statements for 16 April to 15 May 2025, 聽and16 May to 15 June 2025, with an electronic statement for 2 June to 2 July 2025, i.e. the financial statements did not cover a three-month period. From those that were seen, it was noted that the average was unlikely to disclose enough for one vehicle up to 2 July 2025, when [REDACTED] was invested. Original or verified paper statements were not produced. 聽I was unable to take account of the invoices issued by the operator as those monies are not available but are under the control of the relevant customer. Similarly, an offer dated 1 July 2025 to invest the prescribed sum (not an average) by J K Fresh Produce (WM) Ltd (see below) was not sufficient to show financial standing. An operator鈥檚 licence (OD0262135) was revoked in December 2024.

Summary of Evidence

I have attempted to summarise the evidence of Traffic Examiner, Kevin England, as at pages 53 onwards. DVSA commenced inquiries after a roadside stop involving vehicle GJ61 KXG, which was registered to J K Fresh Produce (West Midlands) Ltd (OD0262135). It was found to be driven by Radoslaw Zawadzki, and it was suspected that the record of hours was not accurate. It was found that Driver Zawadzki was relying on an expired Driver CPC Qualification card. It is a matter of record that my colleague revoked that licence at Public Inquiry on 16 December 2024.

However, it was suggested that the driver had been supplied via OD1136645, held by Neachley Transport, and managed by Ajmeer Singh Uppal. As identified above, they share the same address. Checks of the DVLA record showed that the driver was resident at the same address as Mr Uppal鈥檚 and recorded against Uppal Euro Transport Ltd.

It was stated that DVSA Examiners conducted lines of inquiry touching on Neachley Transport and this operator. DVSA apparently found no evidence that Driver Zawadzki was employed by Ajvinder Singh Samra, trading as Neachley Transport. Mr Uppal was not present during the visit to that operator.

Driver Zawadzki was said to live at Mr Uppal鈥檚 address but attempts to contact Mr Zawadzki were unsuccessful. It was later suggested that he had returned to Poland. He failed to respond to two invitations to an interview under caution dated 5 and 27 June 2024. He subsequently failed to appear at a Driver Conduct Hearing in the West Midlands traffic area

Formal production notices (section 99ZA) for data covering a control period of 15 July 2023 to 15 July 2024, were sent on 15 July 2024, 2 and 22 August 2024. Mr Uppal telephoned and referred to problems with accessing data via TruTac. In interview, Mr Uppal claimed that he had not received all the correspondence but admitted that Mr Samra had passed on the message left by Mr England. As Mr England commented, the communication delays risked the impression that Mr. Uppal was avoiding contact.

At the time, the operator was authorised to operate from Trafalgar Global Ltd, Leicester, LE45HH. However, Mr England was unable to locate the site and noted Trafalgar Global Ltd was a company registered in Malta. When he expressed his concerns as to where vehicles were being parked, Mr Uppal admitted that the authorised Operating Centre as Trafalgar Global Ltd was no longer available and that the operator had already started using the Neachley Transport site. Mr Uppal promised to supply all the required tachograph data by close of 28 August 2024.

When the data was supplied, it was found to be incomplete. Analysis revealed that the data for vehicles YA12 KKJ and RX07 DYJ was missing, despite being specified within the control period and no driver card data was supplied for Driver Radoslaw Zawadzki. In interview under caution on 20 September 2024, Mr Uppal claimed that work had dried up during the pandemic and vehicle RX07 DYJ had been stood up. There was no data to confirm this. Mr Uppal claimed to have sold that vehicle 2-3 months earlier. Vehicle MA58 MRA was now registered as YA12 KKJ, but the vehicle tachograph had not been calibrated to show the change of registration. At the time of the report, it had missed the download deadline by 393 days. Mr Uppal was under the impression that he could wait until the next two-year calibration date. YN07 HNG had also not been locked. Mr England describes Mr Uppal not understanding that the tachograph should be locked using his company card despite holding one. Mr Uppal admitted he had not locked vehicle tachographs or calibrated vehicles after a registration change. Mr England was forced to obtain Driver Zawadzki鈥檚 driver card data from the roadside encounter in April 2024. A calibration certificate was sent in following the interview to confirm that vehicle MA58 MRA had now been changed to YA12 KKJ.

It was admitted that Driver Zawadzki had been retained by the operator and resided at the Director鈥檚 address. It was claimed that he was reported to police regarding the loss of a personal vehicle. The Driver was apparently paid to complete the Driver CPC modules but some of it was missed. Only 28 hours of training were recorded, falling short of the 35-hour requirement. Mr Uppal failed to check. Sukhpreet Kaur Uppal also drove a vehicle in May 2023 without a valid Driver CPC. Mr Uppal allowed Mrs Uppal to drive due 鈥榓n emergency鈥�, i.e. the departure of Driver Zawadzki.聽

Mrs Uppal was not paid to complete the Driver CPC training and was expected to complete it in her own time between 23 and 24 May 2024. In effect, she completed an eight-hour day of CPC training and then followed it with a night shift with a total duration of 19 hours 55 minutes. She apparently relied on lots of caffeine. Mr Uppal accepted responsibility. For some reason he thought all Driver CPCs were renewed in September. Mrs Uppal acknowledged that she should not have been driving and was aware as she was completing the modules in between the driving during this week.

The Traffic Examiner Report (page 102 onwards) was completed following the interview. That noted that Driving licencing and training was unsatisfactory, for the reasons set out above. Mr. Uppal and his wife also drive, but there was no evidence of a licence check for Mrs. Uppal. Mrs. Uppal drove the HGV on four occasions between 19 and 24 May 2024 without a valid Driver CPC.

For the reasons set out above drivers鈥� hours and record keeping was found to be unsatisfactory. R Zawadzki drove without a Driver CPC (expired 20 January 2020) and Mrs Uppal without a Driver CPC (expired 23 May 2022) from 19 to 24 May 2024. A new card issued from 6 June 2024. In addition, the operator failed to provide any evidence of downloads, infringement analysis, or disciplinary records. Mrs Uppal committed a serious offence over 19鈥�20 May 2024, when she failed to take the required rest and was short by 2 hours 9 mins. It transpired that the issues with TruTac were connected to non-payment. Not unsurprisingly, Working Time compliance was also found to be unsatisfactory as tachograph records were not monitored for the same reason.

Vehicles Monitoring was clearly poor. However, Mr England was able to identify the following offences from the limited data:聽 Driving Without Card:

• 28鈥�29 August 2023: 494 km, 6h 52m

• 7鈥�8 September 2023: 452 km, 7h 8m

The offences for Mr. Radoslaw Zawadzki in this report relate only to his time with Uppal Euro Transport Ltd, whilst those committed whilst driving for J K Fresh Produce (West Midlands) Ltd were considered by Traffic Commissioner Mr Dorrington on 11 December 2024. The relevant offences to this case are as follows:

• Driver Zawadzki 鈥� 15 July to 10 November 2023 鈥� Driving no DCPC

• Sukhpreet Kaur 鈥� 19 May to 24 May 2024 聽鈥� Driving no DCPC

• Ajmeer Singh Uppal 鈥� 15 July 2023 to 19 April 2024 鈥� failing to ensure data download, failure to produce tachograph records, tachograph not fitted correctly.

The Traffic Examiner, Mr England recorded that Mr. Uppal failed to provide all required tachograph data, and the tachographs were neither locked nor downloaded.

As the Transport Manager, he appeared to lack the necessary knowledge to manage this properly. In addition, Mr Uppal failed to carry out regular driver licence checks, which resulted in Mr Zawadzki driving without a valid CPC qualification. Although Mr Uppal had paid for training modules, Mr Zawadzki completed only 28 hours, and Mr Uppal failed to identify this due to the lack of proper checks. Mr Uppal did not verify his wife鈥檚 driving entitlement, and he permitted her to drive without a valid CPC. The Examiner recorded that she had completed an extended shift, including both training and driving, which posed a road safety risk.

The vehicle registration was changed from MA58 MRA to YA12 KKJ, but he failed to update the insurance certificate. YA12 KKJ shows expired tax, and no SORN record has been found. The tachograph had not been recalibrated after the registration change, and Mr Uppal assumed it could wait until the next calibration check. Whilst the DVSA report was being written, it was noted that YA12 KKJ was untaxed (having expired on 1 November 2024) but not SORN. Checks on 16 May 2025 suggested that the vehicle had been 聽taxed to 1 October 2025.

Mr Uppal very frankly admitted that he had failed to read the calling in letter. He told me that he had concentrated on supplying financial evidence. He was waiting for a letter from his accountant and then disclosed that he had struggled to clear outstanding sums owed to HM Revenue and Customs. 聽He acknowledged that the licence was at risk of revocation. I could not help but notice previous promises to supply requested documentation to the authorities. He told me that he had suffered diagnosed health issues [REDACTED] as a result of the lockdowns. He had only re-0engaged after the issues with Driver Zawadzki came to light. He failed to notify DVLA Medical Branch of his medical diagnosis. I noted that none of this information was communicated during the interview under caution with Mr England. 聽聽聽

Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I am satisfied that I should record adverse findings pursuant to the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and ability to meet the licence requirements, 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements relating to conditions on the licence, including inspection intervals, 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers鈥� hours and tachographs), 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change, including the use of an unauthorised site.

The operator failed to provide the requested financial evidence. What was produced was not sufficient so that I might satisfy myself by reference to an average, which met the prescribed sum. I therefore recorded an adverse decision under section 27(1)(a) regarding financial standing.

Given the operator鈥檚 decision to ignore the Case Management Directions, I concluded that there had been no improvement from the circumstances described in the DVSA evidence. As the Senior Traffic Commissioner identifies in Statutory Document No. 1 on repute and fitness: all operators have a positive duty to co-operate with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the traffic commissioner, by reference to appellate decisions in 2010/064 JWF (UK) Ltd, 2014/044 Stephen James Beattie trading as Sowerby Minibus Travel and particularly 2013/029 Stuart McAuliffe. The failure to fully cooperate with DVSA and to comply with Case Management Directions is clearly relevant to my assessment.

When someone takes on responsibilities as a Director with an operator鈥檚 licence, the onus is on them to ensure that they have the requisite knowledge, not to just wait to be told. There can be no excuse for a Director who has gained a Certificate of Professional Competence and purports to be the Transport Manager. Statutory Document No. 1 refers to the appellate Tribunal case law and could not be clearer: adherence to the rules relating to drivers鈥� hours is fundamental to road safety. What was described does not equate to effective or continuous management. The actions described above fall so far below the standard expected of a competent Transport Manager, that I concluded that Mr Uppal had lost his repute as a Transport Manager, which I recorded under section 27(1)(b). Accordingly, the operator was found to lack a Transport Manager, which I recorded under section 27(1)(a).聽

For the reasons summarised above and by reference to the failure to produce up to date records to show any form of improvement, it is difficult to set a rehabilitative measure. I therefore directed that the disqualification preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence and by reference to paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 of the 19995 Act be for an indeterminate period. The Schedule allows Mr Uppal opportunity to seek to vary the direction after 12 months, but he should be aware that any such application would need to be considered at a public hearing before a traffic commissioner.

I proceeded to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator鈥檚 licensing regime?聽 For the reasons outlined above, I found no improvement. In my assessment, it is far from clear that Mr Uppal is capable of reaching even the basic requirements of an operator鈥檚 licence. On each occasion, when asked to produce documentation for assessment or analysis, he has failed to produce what was requested. In the case of this Public Inquiry Mr Uppal ignored the Case Management Directions. In that approach, I find little difference from the state of compliance described by Mr England.聽 聽

The approach is not to treat operators as children. The licensing regime prescribed by Parliament allows for recognition of the complicated nature of transport businesses but also that those undertakings accept the basic obligations of an operator鈥檚 licence or as a transport manager when the application is made. Road safety in this country is in part underpinned by those obligations. Where there is evidence of non-compliance Traffic Commissioners provide a specialist tribunal which balances the interests of the party, against protecting the public and wider industry from unfair practices.

To explain further, I will quote extensively from the Upper Tribunal decision in2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd. That decision explains that Director fitness is an integral part of any assessment of a company鈥檚 repute. In this case, the operator is the alter ego of Mr Uppal.聽 He should have been aware that:

An Operator鈥檚 Licence represents the basic requirements which ensure fairness to other equivalent operators and protection of other road users. Those requirements are known at the outset and accepted, so as to obtain a licence. Where there are issues, operators are expected to act quickly. The operator is currently operating only 1 vehicle, mainly engaged with by J K Fresh Produce (WM) Ltd, running to wholesalers and then taking loads for PD Bannister from April to November, with only piecemeal work in the Winter months. Mrs Uppal drives one day per week and started again in May.聽 The inevitable revocation will put an end to that work, although Mr Uppal acknowledged that he will still be able to drive and can secure work.

Given the above findings, even though this was a first Public Inquiry, the case obviously fell into the SEVERE bracket. 聽I have found Mr Uppal to be unfit in the common use of the word and that the operator must be removed from the business, accordingly it lost its repute. I made that finding under section 27(1)(a). On hearing submissions, I determined that the licence be revoked from 23:45 on 17 July 2025 to allow for a safe run down and for the vehicles to be secured

I reminded myself of the objectives of the jurisdiction. What can be more relevant that a repeated failure to meet the basic management of drivers and their hours. Based on the findings made above, it would be impossible to conceive of the operator or its Director immediately re-entering the transport business. It is necessary to fix a period for reflection and detailed consideration of the shortcomings outlined above and which the operator has failed to overcome, despite repeated opportunity. The appropriateness of deterrent action is now long- established and the Upper Tribunal decision in 2022/1227 Lineage UK Transport Ltd summarises the relevant case law. I am also mindful of the useful starting points advocated by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in his Statutory Document No. 10. Having established that a period of disqualification is proportionate to the failings recorded and necessary for those purposes, the positive elements are reflected in my decision to adopt the starting point of a first regulatory Public Inquiry and to disqualify the operator and its Director from holding or involvement in the management of an operator鈥檚 licence for a period of 2 years, pursuant to section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

Driver Conduct

Mrs Uppal holds a substantive LGV entitlement with no endorsements or previous conduct history. I referred to her driving engagement above.

The relevant legislation is set out in Sections 110-122 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The legislation draws a clear distinction between Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) licence holders and applicants and Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licence holders and applicants.

Section 112 of the 1988 Act provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant to an applicant a LGV driver鈥檚 licence or a PCV driver鈥檚 licence unless he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that he is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. It is section 121(1) which defines conduct in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a LGV driver鈥檚 licence or the holder of a UK licence for the Community, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle.

The Administrative Court, on the application of Meredith and Others EWHC 2975 (Admin) 18 explained that, whilst the personal circumstances of the driver are, at the preliminary stage of consideration of fitness, irrelevant to the question whether his conduct as a driver has been such as to make him unfit, save to the extent that those circumstances concern his conduct as a driver. Personal circumstances which go to mitigate the conduct itself (such as illness, or emergency, or momentary lapse of attention, or carelessness) will be relevant, while personal circumstances which would, in the ordinary sentencing exercise by a criminal court go to mitigation of penalty (such as loss of work, or other hardship, or the dependence of others upon the licence-holder) would not. I recorded the potential impact on the family above.

The Court did not go on to consider the applicability of the principle of deterrence, which was considered by the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1999] SC 86, but regulatory action undoubtedly contributes to achieving of the purpose of the legislation. The Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 Statutory Document No. 6 identifies a starting point of 4 weeks suspension for driving without a DCPC, as occurred 19 May to 24 May 2024. Even more alarming was the decision to attend training and then drive a shift, demonstrating very poor decision-making. I therefore found it necessary to take deterrent action to send a message to her and other drivers, in the interests of future safe driving. I suspended her driving entitlement with immediate effect for a period of 6 weeks.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

3 July 2025