188体育

IN THE WELSH TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR WALES

Public Inquiry held on 8th April 2025 at Pontypridd

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (鈥淭he Act鈥�)

In the matter of JB Plant & Groundwork Services Limited OG2076865

Background

This decision relates to the application for a restricted goods vehicle operator鈥檚 licence made by JB Plant & Co Groundworks Limited to operate six vehicles and six trailers. The sole director of the applicant company is Samuel Gordon Nookie Burton, based in Llanelli, South Wales. The applicant was called to attend a Public Inquiry at Pontypridd on 8 April 2025, by a call-up letter dated 24 February 2025. That letter set out the areas of concern, specifically concerns that the operator may not be fit to hold an operator鈥檚 licence as a result of relevant activities or convictions, and that the applicant may not have sufficient financial resources to ensure that its vehicles can be maintained in a fit and serviceable condition. The Public Inquiry Brief included relevant Certificates of Conviction and press reports relating to sentences imposed by Swansea Crown Court on the applicant company鈥檚 sole director, Samuel Gordon Nookie Burton. These were four offences of depositing, without an environmental permit, controlled waste in or on land knowingly causing the operation of a regulated facility without authority, and one further offence of depositing, without an environmental permit, controlled waste in or on land. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment on 29th November 2019 and further, on 19th April 2023, sentenced to pay compensation in the sum of 拢3,770 and a Confiscation Order in the sum of 拢44,051 (in default to serve 12 months imprisonment).

The applicant failed to provide evidence of its financial resources 14 days in advance of the hearing, as directed in the Case Management Directions attached to the call-up letter. Nor did it provide information confirming who would be attending the public inquiry hearing or provide any representations or evidence for my consideration, despite the Directions clearly stating that such information and evidence should be submitted at least 14 days in advance of the Inquiry. The sole director of the applicant company, Samuel Burton, did attend the public inquiry hearing, unrepresented. He claimed that he had only received the call-up letter 3 days prior to the hearing, which is why he had not complied with the Case Management Directions. However, my clerk confirmed that the letter dated 24 February had been sent by recorded delivery and was successfully delivered by that method. It had also been sent by email on that date and Samuel Burton accepted that the address to which it was sent was the correct email address, the one he had given on the licence application, but said he had not received it because 鈥淚鈥檓 not one for looking at my emails鈥�. When I indicated that operators are expected to communicate with the regulator digitally and it is therefore important that emails are monitored and responded to promptly, he suggested that it had probably gone to his 鈥渏unk鈥�. He asked me to consider evidence of finances that he had brought to the hearing, despite it not having been submitted by the relevant deadline. I did allow that evidence to be admitted and was satisfied that it demonstrated that the applicant company had access to the required amount over the relevant period. I heard evidence from Samuel Burton and reserved my Decision.

Findings on the evidence

Although the call up letter did include an incorrect reference to the date and court of Samuel Burton鈥檚 convictions, he accepted that the Case Summary at page 3 and Certificates of Conviction included in the Public Inquiry Brief at pages 29 to 34 were correct. He explained that he pleaded guilty to the offences in question and the sentences shown on the certificates were correct. The certificates from HM Courts and Tribunals Service are dated 23 August 2024 and record that he was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for the offences specified on 29th November 2019 and, further, on 19 April 2023, he was sentenced to pay compensation in the sum of 拢3,770.51, victim surcharge of 拢100 and a Confiscation Order in the sum of 拢44,051 (in default to serve 12 months imprisonment). In his evidence at the hearing, Samuel Burton explained that he had initially been ordered to pay over 拢8,000,000 following his conviction and sentence for the crimes in 2019. He had sought to appeal against that proceeds of crime order and his oral evidence before me was that he had successfully done so, although I was not provided with any documentary evidence to substantiate that. He referred me to the evidence he had provided to my office when questioned about his offending, which was his letter included at pages 49-50 of the Brief. When questioned further about this, he maintained that it was Natural Resources Wales who had pursued a proceeds of crime case against him (rather than the Court or Judge charging him as suggested in his letter), he had successfully appealed to reduce the level of the confiscation order from over 拢8 Million to the 拢44,051 figure. There was no dispute about the sentence imposed, as set out in the Case Summary and Certificates of Conviction included in the Public Inquiry Brief and so I did not consider this additional information about an appeal against a proceeds of crime order amount that was apparently originally for a substantially larger sum to be relevant.

Samuel Burton accepted that the crimes were very serious, as reflected by the sentence imposed by the court. When asked about the contents of the press report at the time of his sentence which stated that he was one of the lorry drivers entering a farm with controlled waste which was illegally dumped there and that he was operating as JB Plant Hire he confirmed that the trucks he was driving at that time were 7.5 tonne vehicles. It is clear that the illegal activities he was engaged in, and which resulted in him being convicted of offences under the Environmental permitting regime, involved him operating vehicles for which a licence was required. He maintained that he was working with his brother at the time, who traded as a sole trader under the name 鈥淛B Plant Hire鈥�, however the other person convicted of offences arising from these activities was not his brother.

When asked about a licence that he had previously held and which was revoked, Samuel Burton initially indicated that it was not revoked but was simply not continued. However, he then indicated that he was confusing that with another licence involving his brother and which had not worked out. He accepted that he had held a sole trader operator鈥檚 licence (OG0094858) which was revoked in 2001. He admitted that it was revoked on maintenance grounds following repeated problems with tyres resulting in prohibition notices being issued. When asked how I could be satisfied that I could now trust him to comply with the regulatory regime he stated that he was older now, he wanted to concentrate on his own stuff and would have more time to ensure thorough inspections would be done.

Mr Burton accepted that he was stopped by the DVSA in October last year (after this application was made) driving a 12-tonne vehicle that was issued with an 鈥淪鈥� marked prohibition notice due to a significant failure in roadworthiness compliance. The defects listed on the prohibition notice at pages 27 and 28 of the Public Inquiry Brief include 4 immediate prohibitions for a missing mirror, 2 direction indicators inoperative and a leaking brake valve and 2 delayed prohibitions for an inoperative horn and a loose wheel nut. In his evidence, Samuel Burton sought to downplay the seriousness of these defects, despite the notice being 鈥淪鈥� marked. He said the vehicle he was driving was picked up by him because the person to whom his company had sold it had not paid and so he had gone to 鈥渞epossess鈥� the vehicle and intended to drop it off to have work done on it. There is an ongoing DVSA investigation, however it is clear that Samuel Burton should not have driven the vehicle in that unroadworthy state on the public highway. The road safety risk that resulted from him doing so is self-evident and goes to the question of his fitness, as sole director of the applicant company, to hold an operator鈥檚 licence.

Determination and reasons

The burden of proof is on the applicant to satisfy me that the statutory requirements of the Act are met.

Having regard to the information set out in the Public Inquiry Brief and call up letter, the failure to comply with the Case Management Directions and the evidence of Samuel Burton at the public inquiry hearing, I am not satisfied that the requirements of section 13B of the Act as to the applicant鈥檚 fitness to hold an operator鈥檚 licence are met. The offences for which Mr Burton were convicted and sentenced are serious and resulted in a lengthy sentence of imprisonment and Confiscation Order in the sum of 拢44,051. Samuel Burton was imprisoned for illegally dumping vast quantities of controlled waste at sites in Swansea and Carmarthenshire. He also dumped skip loads of rubbish at the rear and front of a house in Llanelli when the customer for whom he had carried out work failed to pay him. I note the comments made by Judge Thomas in sentencing Burton that he showed a 鈥渃omplete and utter contempt for any regulatory regime鈥�. That is highly relevant in my consideration as to fitness under section 13B of the Act. I also note the evidence about the revocation of the sole trader licence previously held by Samuel Burton and him being stopped by the DVSA on 19 October last year when he was driving a 12 tonne HGV and issued with an 鈥淪鈥� marked prohibition notice in respect of roadworthiness defects. His ability to maintain vehicles in a fit and roadworthy state has not improved on the evidence before me. That vehicle stop is currently the subject of an ongoing DVSA investigation, but the state of the vehicle driven by Mr Burton also causes me to question the applicant鈥檚 fitness to hold a licence and ability to maintain its vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, as required by section 13C(4) of the Act.

On the basis of the applicant鈥檚 failure to satisfy me as to the statutory requirements set out in section 13(2) of the Act, the application for a restricted licence authorising the use of six vehicles and six trailers is refused under section 13(5) of the Act.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

14 April 2025