Decision for Christine Kelly T/A Minibus Express (PC2057387)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North East for Christine Kelly T/A Minibus Express, Charles Neeson, transport manager, and Minibus Express LTD application.
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
CHRISTINE KELLY t/a MINIBUS EXPRESS – PC2057387
&
MR CHARLES NEESON (Transport Manager)
&
MINIBUS EXPRESS LIMITED – Application PC2077929
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 09 APRIL 2025
DECISION:
Under provision of Section 17(1)(a) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”), Operator’s licence PC2057387, held in the name Christine Kelly, is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 30 April 2025.
Application PC2077929, in the name of Minibus Express Limited, is refused under provision of Section 14(1) of the Act, namely that the application does not satisfy the requirement to be of good repute as required by Section 14ZA(2)(b).
Under provision of Section 28(1) of the Transport Act 1995, Christine Kelly is disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator’s licence for a period of six months.
I make a finding that Mr Charles Neeson has lost his good repute. Mr Neeson is disqualified from acting in the capacity of Transport Manager for any road transport undertaking for a period of six months under provision of Schedule 3 (7B)(1) & (2), of the Act.
‘Christine Kelly trading as Minibus Express’ is a Sole Trader who holds a Standard National PSV Operator’s Licence authorising three vehicles. The licence was granted on 14 December 2022. The Transport Manager is Charles Neeson. He has held that role since 25 May 2023.
The licence-holder has a single Operating Centre, recorded as Milton Brook Estate, Chester, CH3 7HW. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Wrightway PGR Ltd, Ellesmere Port at 8 weekly intervals.
Mrs Kelly is also a Statutory Director, along with Sally Pickering, for ‘Minibus Express Limited’. This Limited Company submitted an application on 30 October 2024. Mr Neeson is the nominated Transport Manager.
Background
In 2022 the Sole Trader application was considered at a Public Inquiry due to links with Operator licence PC2012069 held in the name ‘Stephen Greenwood’. Mr Greenwood’s licence had been revoked due to lack of professional competence. Shortly after the revocation, Mrs Kelly made her Sole Trader application – at that time the trading name was ‘Cestrian Travel’. Mrs Kelly is the mother of Mr Greenwood and previously worked with him. The presiding Traffic Commissioner in 2022 granted the application on the agreement of a number of undertakings which included the following:
o an audit shall be conducted by a competent independent person by 23/11/23. The scope of the audit shall include systems for the management of maintenance, driver licencing, drivers hours and working time and the role of the Transport Manager in line with the requirements of EU Regulation 1071/2009 and STC Guidance (see attached audit framework). The audit report will be prepared, acted upon and retained for at least [2] years. A copy of the report together with the Operator’s plans for implementing any recommendations will be forwarded to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner by 31/12/2023;
o the Operator must provide financial evidence for March, April and May 2023 by 30 June 2023;
o Stephen Greenwood will not take any part in the management activities of the PSV Operator’s licence and business beyond his duties as an employed driver.
Over the following two years there were a series of events which regularly brought this Operator to the attention of my office. The following chronology sets out matters which are relevant to the proceedings:
o in May 2023 the original Transport Manager, Mr Wilson resigned his position. In doing so he raised his concerns with the Operator’s ability to be compliant. A letter proposing to revoke the licence on grounds of professional competence being lost was issued, with revocation proceedings subsequently following the appointment and approval of Mr. Neeson as Transport Manager;
o in August 2023 a further letter proposing to revoke was issued as the undertaking for financial evidence had not been complied with. As before, revocation action was halted upon the production of bank statements which evidenced compliance with the financial requirement;
o in February 2024 a warning letter was issued due to a failure to fully comply with the audit undertaking. An audit was received, but the return was absent of the Operator’s plans for implementing recommendations;
o on 03 May 2024 the sole trader sought advice on changing the licence to a limited company. Mrs Kelly was advised of the requirement to apply for a new Operator’s licence for that company. However, no new application followed;
o on 06 May 2024 Mrs Kelly and Ms Pickering were added as Statutory Directors of company number 13672718, ‘Happy Bus Hire Ltd’. Until 06 May 2024 Mr Greenwood had been the Sole Director of Happy Bus Hire Ltd, resigning that position the same date Mrs Kelly and Ms Pickering were appointed.
o on 10 September 2024 the name ‘Happy Bus Hire Ltd’ was changed on Companies House to ‘Minibus Express Ltd’, and on 01 October 2024 Mrs Kelly made a change to the trading name of the Sole Trader licence from “Cestrian Travel” to “Minibus Express”;
o as a result of this change, and the corresponding evidence from Companies House for company number 13672718, this office issued a notice to the Sole Trader, on 01 October 2024, to seek a response on a probable change of entity. No response to that letter was received from Mrs Kelly. Consequently, yet another letter proposing to revoke the licence was issued on 28 October 2024;
o on 30 October 2024 an application for a Standard International PSV Operator’s licence was made by the Limited Company ‘Minibus Express Ltd’.
It is noted that 2024 was not the first time Mrs Kelly was made aware of the need to make an application in the name of the correct legal entity. Within the December 2023 audit of Christine Kelly t/a Cestrian Travel the auditor highlighted that “there is a listing on Companies House for Cestrain Travel Ltd, company number 14593165”, and “The operator is aware that she would require a new operator licence application due to the legal entity”. In response the Operator advised the auditor that the limited company was to be closed, but the Company was not dissolved until 20 August 2024, some eight months later.
Public Inquiry
The letter proposing to revoke the Sole Trader licence, issued on 28 October 2024, set out a number of concerns:
o that there may have been a material change in that there was a change of legal entity; o that despite notifying this office that there has been a change, asking for guidance on next steps, and being issued that guidance, an application in the name of the new entity had not yet been received; o I noted that vehicles continued to be listed to the Sole Trader licence indicating that there may be unlawful transportation of passengers by a Limited Company when it does not hold a licence - in turn that establishes that the Sole Trader may be allowing the unlawful use of their licence by that Limited Company; o these issues raise concern that the Transport Manager of the current licence holder may not be exercising continuous and effective control of transport operations as they are required to do in law.
The licence-holder requested a Public Inquiry, as is their right, and the Limited Company submitted its application for an Operator’s licence.
The Public Inquiry took place on Wednesday 09 April 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. This was a conjoined Hearing to consider regulatory matters in respect of the Sole Trader, the good repute of the Transport Manager Mr. Neeson, and to consider the application by Limited Company Minibus Express Ltd.
The Sole Trader and Transport Manager were each in attendance, and the Limited Company was attended by Mrs Kelly. The other Director, Ms Pickering, was unable to attend due to unexpected personal commitments. Those in attendance were further assisted by Mr. Gary Pickering, who was notified as being the Operations Manager.
The call-up letter requested a series of records including maintenance, drivers’ hours, invoices and payments. Only some of the information was forthcoming in advance.
Issues
As set out above, the existing licence holder has a detailed history of engagement with my office. The licence was granted at Public Inquiry and since then has been subject to a number of letters proposing its revocation.
The concerns I sought during the course of the Hearing were:
• an absence of effective management as evidenced by the December 2023 audit, a red OCRS score, a poor pass rate at MOT, and concerns raised by the records provided for this Inquiry; • whether transport operations are being undertaken by the correct legal entity; • the good repute of the Transport Manager, on account of the issues with maintenance and management of the licence; • the professional competence and good repute of the licence holder; • disposal of the Limited Company application.
Summary of Evidence
Maintenance
An independent audit, provided as part of an undertaking agreed at the grant of this licence, was completed on 11 December 2023 by DCT Consultancy Ltd. This was a remote audit which concluded with a score of “Mostly Satisfactory”. That said, the audit did raise a number of concerns:
• the maintenance process failed to identify and take account of features which may have indicated an engine failure might occur before it did; • an unsatisfactory rate of driver infringements; • no printout or management of driver infringement reports / missing mileage reports; • gaps in wheel / tyre management procedures and failure to comply with the brake test requirements; • no induction procedures for drivers and employment status unknown; • evidence of driver licence checks not retained.
In addition, I was provided with a range of records in advance of the Inquiry for consideration. I identified the following features which were discussed with Mrs Kelly and Mr Neeson:
• a contract with the specified maintenance provider did not reference the client company. I was unable to ascertain from it whether the contract was for Christine Kelly, Minibus Express Ltd or Cestrian Travel.
Those in attendance were unable to offer an explanation as to why the client company was not included in the maintenance contract.
• Driver Defect Reports were all incomplete. The driver name was not fully completed on any records viewed, nor was the vehicle registration. In general, the time of the report was not included and all boxes were ticked as checked, even those not relevant to the vehicle – e.g. cameras / monitors. Each report was stamped “Checked” but with no indication as to who had undertaken that check. In some instance the sheet was marked with a statement “Spoke with driver about ticking items not checked”. There was, however, no evidence of discussions with drivers. • Mr. Fletcher advised me that it was he who stamped the defect reports and made the notes. I asked Mr. Neeson as to his involvement, and he admitted that he skimmed through the records when he attended the site, but apologised as he had failed to take proper account of the shortcomings.
I note that I reviewed a considerable number of defect reports for three vehicles and the issues were consistent across the board.
o I also checked what were entitled as “Driver Records” for four drivers. These included photocopies of driver licences, but no date of the record was made, and no evidence that these were regular checks. These were supported by declarations made by the drivers giving authorisation for their details to be used to request a DVLA driver record check. However, these all gave authorisation to ‘Cestrian Travel’ and not Christine Kelly (or Minibus Express Ltd). As such the licence holder had no authorisation to make such checks. I note the driver authorisation to Cestrian Travel included documents dated March 2025.
Infringement reports were provided for each driver, however, all were in the name of Cestrian Travel. Infringements were evident, and documents were signed by the driver and Mr. Fletcher, but there was no explanation for infringements or records of any action taken. Again, there was no evidence of these records being reviewed or considered by either the Transport Manager or the Director. When asked, Mr. Neeson again apologised for a lack oversight in this area.
As with the defect reports, I reviewed records for four drivers and the issues were consistent across all.
o Missing Mileage reports were also provided. These were completely absent of any monitoring or review. Again, Mr Neeson apologised for a lack of oversight.
o Further evidence entitled “Vehicle Records” was provided. This included Preventative Maintenance and Brake Test Records for the three vehicles.
On all records any reference to “Operator” or “Owner” was marked as ‘Cestrian Travel’. Driver Detectable Defects were noted at PMI, but records of rectifications were not. Brake tests regularly showed imbalances exceeding 25%, in some cases exceeding 30%, with no note made, no evidence of brakes being adjusted, and no retests. There was no sign of any review, oversight, or challenge made by the Operator or Transport Manager.
Again, Mr Neeson accepted his lack of oversight.
Entity
Mrs Kelly advised me in evidence that she had tried to do the correct thing regarding the legal entity. She had put in the application in October 2024 and had expected it to be processed before now. She initially maintained that all work was being undertaken under her Sole Trader licence however, the following became apparent through the evidence.
At least two vehicles are owned by the Limited Company, and all are insured by the Limited Company. There was no arrangement in place to lease or hire the vehicles to the Sole Trader. Those vehicles were driven by individuals paid from the Limited Company bank account. All payments for work were received into the Limited Company bank account. Fuel, tolls tunnels, and payments for loans associated for the vehicles were all paid out of the Limited Company account. As were payments to Mr Neeson and Mr Fletcher.
It was further admitted by Mrs. Kelly that all drivers engaged to work were self-employed. This is contrary to the advice from HMRC, and the Senior Traffic Commissioner, that drivers are unlikely to qualify for self-employed status unless they were an owner/driver.
Transport Manager
As set out above Mr Neeson accepted his failings in respect of the continuous and effective management of transport operations. He confirmed that he only visited the Operator on an infrequent basis, undertaking much of the work remotely.
He further advised that he is nominated as Transport Manager on one other licence but, as at the day of the Inquiry, that Operator had informed Mr Neeson the licence was being surrendered and would no longer require his services. Mr Neeson is also employed as a Driver Trainer.
Mr Neeson offered little other evidence beyond his recent attendance at the first day of a two-day Transport Manager CPC refresher course.
Findings
Maintenance
I put it to those in attendance that my observations were that the records before me suggested no oversight of transport operations from her or the Transport Manager, that there was no review of PMIs or brake test records, no review of missing mileage reports, no review of drivers’ hours infringements, that all records were in the name of Cestrain Travel, and that the driver defect reporting system was a mere “box ticking” exercise. Mrs Kelly and Mr Neeson agreed that my findings were accurate.
In mitigation Mrs Kelly advised me that she only really took on this business following her son’s loss of his licence. She had invested heavily in his business and therefore wanted to continue in that line of work herself. She did reassure me that her son played no part in the business at all, not even as a driver. However she felt she was trying her best with limited knowledge or experience.
I am satisfied that a range of the undertakings on the Operator’s licence have not been complied with and that there has been a failure on the part of the Operator, and her Transport Manager, to make proper arrangements so that:
• the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence are observed; • the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept; • vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition; and • drivers report promptly any defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles, and that any defects are promptly recorded in writing.
Entity
Mrs Kelly asserted that she tried to do the right thing in setting up the Limited Company. However, in correspondence with this office she stated “I still operate as a Sole Trader on my Sole Trader licence. Minibus Express Ltd is just ready to go for when the new licence is granted”. The evidence contradicts that position, and I find that this was a false statement made for the purposes of the application by the Limited Company.
I am satisfied to the civil standard, being the balance of probabilities, that there has been a material change to this licence holder. The evidence before me, both material and verbal, confirms that the Sole Trader is no longer operating vehicles. It does not insure, maintain or manage the vehicles, it does not pay the drivers. All operations have transferred to the Limited Company. The Sole Trader does not use its Operator’s licence and has, in effect, been loaning its licence and discs to the Limited Company. Mrs Kelly had previously been given advice both from my office and the Auditor of the need to apply in the correct legal entity, she failed to follow that advice.
Transport Manager
Mr Neeson has failed to provide any evidence of effective and continuous management of transport operations. All transport operations have been left in the hands of Mr Fletcher. I find that Mr Neeson is a Transport Manager of this operation in name only. I do not get a sense that this was intended for the purposes of obtaining the Operator’s licence, certainly Mr Neeson was not the original nomination, but he has been absent both physically and absent of his responsibilities. I put this down to mismanagement rather than anything of a more sinister nature.
Decision
Due to the failure to manage the transition between the Sole Trader and Limited Company; the failure to ensure proper employment of drivers; the failure to ensure proper arrangements to manage transport operations; to have systems for compliance with undertakings in respect of maintenance; and of drivers’ hours, I find that Mrs Kelly no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute.
On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “Severe”. There are clear and deliberate acts designed to give the Operator a commercial advantage and which compromise road safety.
I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the negative. The evidence before me in respect of this licence, and the history of it, leads me to conclude that it is currently highly unlikely that this is an operator who can comply.
I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. The negative features of this case are well laid out above and I have little or no positive features against which to balance other than give credit for the fact Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Neeson appear, only now, to understand the gravity of their failings.
I therefore make a direction that this licence be revoked with 28 days’ notice to allow transport operations to be brought to an orderly close – noting that Mrs Kelly needs to ensure correct and appropriate accounting for any use of vehicles owned by the Limited Company.
Limited Company Application
As Mrs Kelly has lost her good repute, the application for the Limited Company fails as Mrs Kelly, in her role as Director, can no longer satisfy the mandatory requirements at Section 14ZA. But the issues do go wider. This, being an application, requires the applicant to satisfy me that the meet all requirements set out in legislation to hold an Operator’s licence. At Section 14ZC of the Act this includes the requirement to satisfy me:
• that there will be adequate facilities or arrangements for maintaining in a fit and serviceable condition the vehicles proposed to be used under the licence; and • that there will be adequate arrangements for securing compliance with the requirements of the law relating to the driving and operation of those vehicles.
The evidence presented to me today was evidence not of how the Sole Trader was managing operations, but of how the Limited Company was managing operations (albeit without a valid licence to do so). On consideration of that evidence I conclude that there has been no oversight from either the Operator or the Transport Manager, there has been no review of brake test reports, there has been no review of missing mileage reports, no review of drivers’ hours infringements, no evidence of driver management and a complete failure to have an effective driver defect reporting system.
In addition, I am advised that all records are in the name of an incorrect entity, Cestrian Travel, and all engaged drivers have self-employed status.
As a result, I refuse the application as the requirements of Section 14ZA and 14ZC are not satisfied.
Disqualification
This is a serious case showing persistent Operator licence failures with inadequate response. Mrs Kelly admits that this whole process has been a “mess” and she only picked things up after her son lost his licence. I find that time is needed for Mrs Kelly to take stock, learn, consider if she wishes to re-enter the employment of being a Passenger Vehicle Operator. If so, she needs time to get matters put right in advance of any future application. I set a disqualification period for Mrs Kelly of six months to facilitate that.
Transport Manager
The failings set out above - particularly in respect of (i) the absence of effective arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, and (ii) securing compliance with the requirements of the law relating to the driving and operation of those vehicles - are such that the Mr Neeson has lost his good repute as Transport Manager. He has been all but absent from his responsibilities with no evidence that he has any active role in the effective and continuous management of transport operations. Like Mrs Kelly, time is needed for a reset. I find disqualification as proportionate, and I set this at a period of six months. For clarity, I do not impose any rehabilitation measures and find that Mr Neeson should be free to return as a Transport Manager once this disqualification period is served.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
11 April 2025