[2025] UKUT 062 (AAC)

Generally, the Traffic Commissioner found Mr Bain to be an unimpressive witness. Her reasons stated:

“13.

I found Mr Bain to be a reluctant and unreliable witness. He spoke under his breath during much of his evidence and had to be prompted to provide full answers to many of the questions which were put to him.”

The Traffic Commissioner’s reasons included a number of adverse findings regarding Mr Bain’s cooperativeness and honesty:

“37…he did not appear to accept that that his failure to keep his knowledge or skills up to date was an issue.

…39…perhaps the most serious aspect of this case was the allegations concerning Mr Bain’s failure to co-operate with, and obstruction of, DVSA officers in the course of their duties. Mr Bain directed one of his employees to withhold vital documentation from VE Mackie in the course of his investigation and failed to deny that there had been retrospective completion, and therefore falsification, of maintenance records.

40.

I accept that Mr Bain’s computer illiteracy may have contributed to his failure to co-operate with TE Jarvis’ requests. However, he made no proper attempt to bring his difficulties to her attention and admitted to disengaging out of frustration instead. I also noted that documentation which had been requested by TE Jarvis without response, was later provided for PI.

41…His attitude at inquiry was one of arrogance rather than of concern for compliance and operating within the rules.

42.

Affronted or not, Mr Bain chose not to co-operate DVSA officers carrying out their duties. That is a matter most serious in its own right. However, there is also evidence of falsified documents in this case, I also consider it likely Mr Bain’s failure to co-operate was also an attempt to hide his shortcomings and attempt to evade regulatory action.

43.

Mr Bain knew that falsifying vital maintenance documents by post-dating them was wrong. When given the opportunity at inquiry, he failed to deny that the documents had been falsified. He is also an operator of many years’ experience. On any objective view, his conduct in allowing such falsification falls to be classed as dishonest.

44.

Mr Bain’s actions have undoubtedly prolonged the risk to road safety that his transport operations have posed. His behaviour is entirely inconsistent with the obligation upon all operators to operate in a trustworthy manner. If I cannot trust Mr Bain to co-operate with the authorities, or to face up to and remedy shortcomings where they occur, then I cannot trust him to safely operate vehicles outwith the gaze of the regulator.

45.

Moreover, Mr Bain’s obstruction and failure to co-operate is nothing new. He was given a warning following public inquiry in 2019 for failing to co-operate with the police in circumstances where his party buses were involved in anti-social behaviour. I therefore consider his behaviour to amount to a course of conduct.

46.

Given my finding that Mr Bain’s maintenance documents had been falsified, I am unable to rely on any of the documentation produced by him for inquiry…In addition, Mr Bain’s certificate of attendance at refresher CPC training was never produced so there is no evidence that he has actually undertaken much needed, and long overdue, CPD.”