51茶馆

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

PAULINE REILLY 鈥� OF2021443

AND

DEENEY & MOONEY LTD 鈥� OF2080633

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER鈥橲 DECISION

Background

Pauline Reilly, trading as Deeney and Mooney, holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 5 vehicles only.

There is one Operating Centre at Caldecote Farm, Caldecote Lane, Bushey WD23 4EF. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Carey Commercials Ltd at 8-weekly intervals.

The applicant, Deeney and Mooney Ltd seeks a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 6 vehicles. The Directors are James Deeney, William Deeney, and Pauline Reilly. That application was made on 26 February 2025. It was incorporated in November 2024.

The applicant proposes one site as an Operating Centre: Caldecote Farm, Caldecote Lane, Bushey WD23 4EF. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are to be carried out by Carey Commercials Ltd, again at 8-weekly intervals. The licence is authorised for 5 vehicles (the application is for 6). The current authority relates to 2 x 26 tonne 鈥榙ust carts鈥�, 1 x 10 tonne bin/cage vehicle and 2 x 7.5 tonne 聽bin/cage vehicles, but only 3 vehicles are in use at any one time.

It is a matter of public record that OF1101138, held by James Deeney and Kevin Mooney, was revoked on the 31 March 2019 after a Public Inquiry when it was found that there had been a change in entity of the licence holder, that the operators did not meet the requirement for a Transport Manager with professional competence, and lost their repute. Edward Deeney lost his repute as a Transport Manager and was disqualified indefinitely from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence with effect from that date. Driver William Paul Deeney鈥檚 LGV vocational entitlement was suspended for 3 months with effect from 15 March 2019.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 27 August 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. James Deeney, William Deeney, and Pauline Reilly were present, represented by Catherine Gilder, solicitor of CE Transport Law.

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:

• 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to the business and who is operating.
• 26(1)c)(iii) 鈥� Prohibition Notices.
• 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements to abide by conditions on the licence.
• 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records).
• 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change in fitness to hold the licence and in the availability of finance required.
• 28 鈥� Disqualification.

The hearing was also called to allow the applicant to pursue its application by showing that it meets the statutory criteria and specifically the following sections of the above Act:

• 13B 鈥� fitness to meet the licence requirements.
• 13C(2) 鈥� satisfactory arrangements for complying with drivers鈥� hours requirements.
• 13C(3) 鈥� satisfactory arrangements to ensure vehicles are not overloaded.
• 13C(4) 鈥� satisfactory arrangements and facilities for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
• 13C(5) & (6) 鈥� Operating Centre, which is available and suitable and has sufficient capacity, as permission was yet to be received in the name of the applicant.
• 13D 鈥� available finance so that maintenance for the total authority is not prejudiced.

The operator and applicant were directed to lodge evidence in support by 6 August 2025, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Despite that, documents were lodged late, culminating in representations dated 21 August 2025, received the following day. That gave an adverse impression of both operator and applicant. Others attending public inquiry would be well advised to learn the lessons from this decision. It will not result in less detailed examination, more often than not it indicates to a traffic commissioner that even more thorough examination is required.

Summary of Evidence

I referred to the revocation of OF1101138. Deputy Traffic Commissioner Hayden recorded that James Deeney made the decisions in relation to this undertaking. It was James Deeney who lodged the application for a Standard National Licence and was aware of the requirement for a Transport Manager. He represented that his brother, Edward, would carry out those duties. He submitted that application knowing that the signature of the Transport Manager was a forgery. In March 2012, James Deeney signed a questionnaire confirming the Transport Manager arrangements, notwithstanding that his Transport Manager had never been on site. The same fiction was repeated on 1 December 2015. In addition to those false declarations, there was a failure to notify convictions. The Operator was assisted periodically by a transport consultant and had ample opportunity to make another application but maintained the fiction.

James Deeney was found to know little about tachograph compliance and had taken no steps to educate himself. He maintained at the Inquiry that he had given his card to his son for safe keeping but had told the Traffic Examiner that he had left his driver鈥檚 card in the vehicle and that led to its misuse. In his interview he said that he had definitely not given his card to his son. As a result, the DTC placed little reliance on the assurances given by James Deeney. He referred to the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 Statutory Document on Good Repute, which refers to the requirement that the application be completed fully, honestly, and accurately. He concluded that the operators had lost their repute. The only remedial measure appeared to be the attendance of Driver William Deeney, at a Driver鈥檚 Hours and Tachograph Driver CPC Module in June 2018. Mr Hayden described the breaches of trust as being so fundamental that the operators lost their repute.

Edward Deeney was a Transport Manager in name only. Mr Hayden accepted that he had no involvement with the Licence or the undertaking, but it was a serious misjudgement to permit his qualification to be utilised by the operator. He was disqualified indefinitely from acting as a Transport Manager until obtaining a Certificate of Professional Competence by way of examination.

On receipt of this current application, correspondence was sent to the operator seeking an explanation and querying whether the site at Caldecote Farm, Caldecote Lane, Bushey WD23 4EF was still available to her. In response, Catherine Gilder, a solicitor of C E Transport Law Ltd provided a letter on behalf of Pauline Reilly, confirming that Pauline Reilly is the daughter of James Deeney and had decided (following the revocation of the above licence, connected to her father) to attempt to carry on the business. It is confirmed within the letter that 鈥渢he work carried out by Ms Reilly is the same as the previous business, that being office refurbishment, supplying labour and materials and removing waste. Waste is transferred to waste transfer sites dependant on the nature of the waste.鈥�

It was confirmed that both William Deeney (brother) and James Deeney (father) work for the business as shopfitters/supervisors and are the primary drivers. The addition of the trading name 鈥楧eeney & Mooney鈥� was because Ms Reilly believed it would be more advantageous to use the previous trading name, which was known within the industry. It was claimed that there was no intention to mislead me.

In respect of the application, a letter was issued asking for confirmation of various facts, including the relationship with Pauline Reilly and her operator licence. In the response, the applicant stated that the applicant intended to take over the current work of licence OF2021443 Pauline Reilly t/a Deeney & Mooney. It was noted that the recent emails said to be sent on behalf of Pauline Reilly, were sent from Will Deeney.

It was suggested that the applicant met the statutory criteria. It was suggested that the 鈥榦ffences鈥� by Mr William Deeney were over 7 years old and therefore not relevant under Paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 2. He had attended OLAT training on the 10 March 2025. James Deeney and Mrs Reilly had no historical or current convictions. The revocation of the partnership licence was over 6 years ago, and James Deeney was booked to attend OLAT training with Mrs Reilly already having attended. That ignored the circumstances of the existing licence.

Correspondence gave assurances that Mrs Reilly was still operating and from the site, although part of it was being redeveloped. Formal notice was served. That was updated by correspondence from OTC Licensing dated 8 May 2025 following telephone contact. That led to the response dated 23 May 2025. An application was made to surrender the sole trader licence. Written representations suggested that the move to the applicant company was a positive step and would ensure clear, transparent, and identifiable accountability for the operator licence.

I was told that the applicant wished to take over the sole trader work and vehicles, providing labour and materials for the strip out and refurbishment of mainly office buildings primarily in the Central London and Greater London area (95% of the work). All processes would be the same with maintenance by Carey Commercial Repairs Ltd and inspections at 8 weeks to include roller brake testing (load sensor to counter previous under-laden vehicles). The same driver defect reporting processes were to be engaged. The same contractor, Tyre Men would complete tyre work and retorques. Driver cards and Vehicle Units were downloaded every 4 to 5 weeks by William Deeney but will now be undertaken fortnightly. Data will continue to be sent to Shea鈥檚 Transport Services Ltd to produce infringement and missing mileage reports. Average monthly mileage per vehicle was said to be approximately 2,000km.

There are currently 3 drivers, James Deeney, William Deeney, and Paul O鈥機onnor (part-time). James and William Deeney work full time and do approximately 3 hours driving a day working Monday 鈥� Friday. James Deeney sometimes works at weekends to cover emergency work. The applicant company was said to employ 12 people (including labourers, tradesmen, the drivers, and management). They have not been paid through this operator or the applicant company. Even at the Public Inquiry they continue to be paid from a bank account in the name of James Deeney, suggesting that he is the operator. That was not relied on at grant, but it is difficult to understand what scrutiny was exercised by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at that time. The financial evidence put forward by this applicant company did not refer to an operational bank account. Given the Upper Tribunal decision in 2012/017 NCF Leicester Ltd, I remained to be satisfied that this met the purposes of the mandatory requirement. Mrs Reilly was unable to tell me who had signed off any accounts and or declaration to HM Revenue & Customs. Mr O鈥機onnor has apparently been permitted to hold himself out as self-employed, despite regular employment for 2-3 days per week over the last 1.5 years. I referred to published 51茶馆 and HMRC guidance, as well as the Upper Tribunal decision in 2019/54 Bridgestep Ltd & Tom Bridge, which advises to the contrary. Again, the operator and applicant Directors appeared to be ignorant of the position.

The late representations from Mrs Reilly, refer to her position as 鈥楧irector鈥�, but there were separate representations as a sole trader. They averred to the revocation of the partnership licence and yet describe this as a 鈥榮uccessful business.鈥� Steps were apparently taken to benefit from 鈥榓n established client base鈥� and Mrs Reilly (daughter of James Deeney), applied for the restricted licence in her own name. All vehicles were then livered in the trading name, as were the waste bins. OTC only became aware of this in November 2024 and sought an explanation and referred to the development of the site. An email from the solicitor on 22 November 2024 was copied to info@deeneyandmooney.com. The email address stated on licence OF2021443 is paulinereilly1605@gmail.com, but the email address given on the application for Deeney and Mooney Ltd (OF2080633) is info@deeneyandmooney.com.

I was told that Mrs Reilly regretted the lack of foresight in not making the application. It was suggested that this was an oversight, reflecting the informal nature of a small family business. Mrs Reilly took full responsibility for what was described as a serious mistake. This is not a case where she was new to the businesses but had helped out with the accounts and administration even during her 14-year teaching career. As James Deeney encountered health issues, there was an intention that she and her brother would take a greater role in management. Her father continued as a consultant/advisor. She sought to persuade me that this was not deliberate or intended to mislead. It was accepted that 聽James Deeney was involved in the business from the outset. Mrs Reilly claimed she did not hide this, nor was she forthcoming. This was described as support for his daughter, but the business bank account remained in Mr James Deeney鈥檚 name. William Deeney undertook the same role as her father, driving, assisting and supervising staff.

I was told that it was only after that application that 鈥榠t became apparent it would be commercially advantageous to add the t/a name Deeney & Mooney鈥�. That appeared contradictory. The suggestions of oversight and a lack of intention to mislead did not stand up to cross-examination. Almost from the outset, Mrs Reilly referred to 鈥渨e鈥� and 鈥渦s,鈥� indicating joint decisions for the benefit of other family members. It was admitted that the applicant Directors thought that James Deeney was prevented from applying for a new licence following the revocation. The decision to apply in her name was therefore deliberate. In that context, the decision to only add the trading name聽 application after the application was granted (9 days) appeared far more cynical than suggested in the representations. Mrs Reilly has only just attended operator licence awareness training and was not really running this transport business. She gave an incorrect answer regarding split breaks for drivers and was unable to guess the performance required of a service brake. Her application claimed that she was fit to ensure compliance. It is yet another example of the need for effective gatekeeping and the hazards of ineffective scrutiny, waiting for risks to materialise. 聽聽

In Statutory Document No. 1, the Senior Traffic Commissioner advises that any attempt to deceive a traffic commissioner is serious conduct which cannot be condoned. All operators should understand that sins of omission, which effectively deprive a traffic commissioner of the ability to regulate or understand who is operating, will be viewed as seriously. It simply undermines the trust I can place on anything which the operator has said. In reality, Mrs Reilly failed to distinguish between the previous partnership, the operation under her sole name, and the applicant company. This was described as though it was all the same business, despite her signed statements and declarations as part of the application for the existing licence. However, I took her ignorance into account in the disposal (as below).

On a more positive note, the operator/applicant bundle referred to a sample electronic Preventative Maintenance Inspection record., a driver defect reporting book produced by Novadata, a maintenance contract between Carey Commercial Repairs Ltd and Deeney and Mooney Ltd for 8-weekly inspections, example of a 12month planner covering annual test, calibrations, inspections and brake tests, with driver licence checks, what was described as a template for recording investigations post annual test failures, a blank tyre torque register, a photograph of the brake testing facility, Driver licence checks for William Deeney dated 23 May and 8 August 2025, Paul O鈥機onnor dated 23 May 2025, and James Deeney dated 8 August 2025; certificates of attendance for Pauline Reilly on 2 July 2025 and William Deeney on 10 March 2025 (Logistics UK), booking for driver defect training with David Cox on 20 August 2025, driver disciplinary policy and procedures. I subsequently received copies of inspection records:

AY14 PZW

• 8 August 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 60%, 28%, 20%, identifying an oil leak around the sump, gearbox seal and both axle 1 brake chambers corroded (to be monitored).
• 11 June 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 61%, 31%, 19%, identifying an oil leak around the sump, gearbox seal and both axle 1 brake chambers corroded (to be monitored).
• 17 April 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 48%, 20%, 14%, as insufficient load on axle and 23% imbalance on axle 1, identifying a defective nearside front bulb and offside rear taillight, an oil leak around the sump and gearbox seal.
• 20 February 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 54%, 31%, 16%.

HX15 AEK

• 15 August 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 75%, 47%, 28%, identifying offside axle 3 brake pads breaking up but only monitored.
• 19 June 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 62%, 35%, 28%, identifying offside axle 3 brake pads breaking up but only monitored.
• 28 May 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 61%, 34%, 28%, identifying defective front side lights and rear markers, headlamps needing adjustment and offside axle 3 brake pads breaking up but only monitored.
• 24 April 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 64%, 36%, 29%, but no reference to the brake pads.
• 3 April 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 64%, 38%, 29%, identifying offside axle 3 brake pads breaking up but only monitored.

LN64 GAU

• 7 August 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 57%, 34%, 23%, identifying chip to windscreen zone A, an oil leak around the sump, worn axle 1 brake pads etc.
• 14 June 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 55%, 33%, 22%, identifying rear markers defective, offside top marker lens missing, chip to windscreen zone A, an oil leak around the sump, worn axle 1 brake pads etc.
• 30n April 2025, headed Deeney & Mooney 鈥� inspection with roller brake test results with printout: 59%, 34%, 23%, identifying offside body bolts loose, light system malfunction showing on dash, offside front indicator bulb inoperative, defective camera, chip to windscreen zone A, an oil leak around the sump, worn axle 1 brake pads etc.

The accompanying driver defect reports were hard to decipher and did not appear to refer to all of the driver detectable defects suggested above. I was referred to a final pass rate of 96.55% at annual test but a mechanical prohibition rate of 33.33%. The single prohibition issued in December 2024 related to a tyre and suggested weaknesses in driver defect reporting. Drivers were said to have received walk round training and on drivers鈥� hours.

I was concerned by the number of manual entries being made by William Deeney, whilst driving. The response suggested that the recording of 鈥榦ther work鈥� was not understood or effectively managed. It had not been brought to attention by Shea鈥檚 Transport Services Ltd and Mrs Reilly had clearly not been managing the position.

Determinations

Based on the evidence above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse decisions under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to the business and who is operating, 26(1)c)(iii) 鈥� Prohibition Notice, 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements to abide by conditions on the licence and identity of the operator, 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (effective driver defect reporting, drivers鈥� hours and tachographs), 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change, 聽in the absence of financial evidence in the name of the operator to support maintenance.

In addition, I referred to the status of the licence. As summarised by the Senior Traffic Commissioner, a restricted licence is only appropriate for the carriage of the operator鈥檚 own goods (i.e. the goods are the property of the business or, in the case of a company that entity or its parent or subsidiary) and on their own account, i.e. no more than ancillary to the overall activities of the undertaking. Where an operator only carries goods that are, or become and then remain, the operator鈥檚 own property, a restricted licence is likely to be appropriate. The Upper Tribunal has stressed the importance of looking at the purpose of the operation. Where a predominant part and purpose of the operation is the transportation of goods, that is likely to fall within the definition given to hire or reward adopted by the Upper Tribunal.

Where the transport is part of the operator鈥檚 wider business, such as converting or processing of the goods as opposed to simply conveying them to another place, that is likely to fall within the definition of section 3(3). Statutory Document No. 0 provides examples including the removal of waste. In order to comply with environmental protection legislation, ownership of the contents usually transfers upon collection, but the degree of processing is also relevant. The production of a waste processing certificate will usually indicate that some form of processing takes place. That involves access to premises and facilities for those purposes. If transported to in the operator鈥檚 own premises for processing, this indicates that a restricted licence may be sufficient.

Determining the correct type of licence might be a question of fact and degree, ownership of the goods can be relevant to determining the type of licence required, but the Upper Tribunal indicates that traffic commissioners should also look at the business model and what was involved in the transport activity. In this case the Environment Agency licence was not held by either entity. Representations confirmed that operations involved waste removal. It was claimed that waste is separated on site into bins/cages and then taken to relevant transfer sites including Glynn鈥檚 Recycling, NW10 2UG. It was belatedly accepted that a restricted licence was not appropriate for this type of work.

On fitness, the Upper Tribunal in 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd approved of the application of the Priority Freight question (2009/225) namely: how likely is it that the operator will comply in future. For obvious reasons and summarised above, I concluded that Mrs Reilly would not be able to comply and must be removed from the business. Accordingly, I recorded that she was not fit to hold this operator鈥檚 licence pursuant to section 26(1)(h). I accepted that, whilst she turned her face from the obvious and fully intended to carry on the family business for the benefit of the family, she may not have intended to deliberately mislead. Nevertheless, she had not managed the operations. I drew back from disqualification, although it was close, as this was her first Public Inquiry.

I was persuaded to hold the application in abeyance, to upgrade and republish the application, now seeking a standard operator鈥檚 licence. There will need to be full scrutiny of that application so as to avoid the mistakes of the past. The current operator鈥檚 licence will be revoked from 23:45 on 15 October 2025 so as to allow for a safe run-down. I will hold the application to that date. I have stressed to the operator and applicant that the licence only gives authority to the named operator and only within the strict parameters of a restricted licence. Any further adverse reports may well impact the application. The applicant has been warned.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

27 August 2025