[2024] UKUT 226 (AAC)

This matter came to the DVSA’s attention following a routine roadside encounter on 12 September 2021 at the M74 Beattock DVSA check site. On this occasion, vehicle GN18 OUF was stopped displaying a disc in the name of “Philip John Bett t/a Streamlink”. The driver told the DVSA examiner that his boss was Mr Bett, who was subcontracted by Strachan Haulage. The driver stated that all the work was allocated by “Stuart Strachan” (the Appellant) and the driver had little involvement with Mr Bett. It was established that the vehicle was on Mr Bett’s operator’s licence but was registered to Strachan Haulage, and was parked at the Appellant’s operating centre.

Of note, the Appellant applied to increase the authorisation on his licence on 22 September 2021, shortly after this roadside encounter, from three vehicles and four trailers to ten vehicles and 15 trailers. A maintenance investigation was carried out in light of the application but this was returned as “unsatisfactory” hence he withdrew his application on 18 November 2021. The withdrawal was not accepted due to the investigation which was then ongoing following the roadside encounter.

On 2 December 2021, DVSA investigators attended Mr Bett’s first operating centre at the premises of “Streamline Shipping”. The DVSA investigator spoke to the Health and Safety Coordinator for Streamline Shipping. The investigator was told that Mr Bett was not known there either in his own name or that of “Streamlink”, and that Mr McLaughlin was employed by “Streamline Shipping”. Mr Bett’s current operating centre in Cumbernauld was visited on the same day. The DVSA investigator spoke with the transport manager of another operator who shared the site. He was again told that Mr Bett was not known there either in his own name or in the trading name of “Streamlink”.

On the same day, Mr McLaughlin told the DVSA via phone call, that he had never fulfilled his role as transport manager for Mr Bett as Mr Bett had not operated any vehicles. He had met with someone called “Stuart” in 2018 and spoke to him on a regular basis. In interview with the DVSA on 10 January 2022, Mr McLaughlin confirmed that he was employed by “Streamline Shipping” but had never met Mr Bett. He had spoken with “Stuart” in 2018 and said the business between Mr Bett and the Appellant had not been set up.

Mr Bett was invited for interview with the DVSA on 17 December 2021, but he could not attend on that date. A few days later, he told the DVSA that he had sold his business to the Appellant about one year previous. An interview took place on 17 January 2022, when Mr Bett arrived at the DVSA with the Appellant, asking for him to be present in the interview. This was not permitted given the risk of conflict. Mr Bett declined to be interviewed without legal advice.

Mr Bett later emailed a statement, dated 17 February 2022, stating that he sourced work for his business through contacts, and then sub-contracted the work out. He thought his business arrangements were acceptable but then realised they were not. He agreed to sell his business a year previous in return for shares in a limited company, but this had not yet happened. He had recently appointed the Appellant as his transport manager and had changed his business practices: he was employing his drivers directly and had issued them with written contracts of employment; there were hire agreements in place for the vehicles he used belonging to the Appellant; he was paying for fuel and maintenance; he was making arrangements for brake tests, forward planning, driver defect reporting and tachograph analysis; he had provided internal training for all drivers; and he had given written tests to all drivers on EU drivers hours and working time rules.

On 31 May 2022, Mr Bett applied to surrender his operator’s licence. This was not accepted due to the outstanding investigation.

The DVSA believed, from the evidence before them, that the Appellant had persuaded Mr Bett to make an application for a licence as the Appellant thought he would either lose his licence or it would be curtailed after his first PI on 21 August 2018. Mr Bett’s licence application was made only 22 days after that PI, following which, the Appellant’s licence was severely curtailed. No vehicle were specified on Mr Bett’s licence until 14 October 2021, just days before the Appellant’s curtailment took effect after the Upper Tribunal refused his appeal, and the vehicles specified were registered to the Appellant’s haulage business. The vehicles were parked at one of the Appellant’s operating centres. Mr Bett and Mr McLaughlin were not known at either of Mr Bett’s operating centres and the vehicles were being downloaded by the Appellant’s employee. Safety inspections were paid for by the Appellant, who was also carrying out in house safety inspections. Drivers wages, fuel and maintenance was being paid by the Appellant. The DVSA evidence suggested that the Appellant’s vehicles had been used on Mr Bett’s licence between 25 May 2021 and 20 January 2022