Despite holding an operator’s licence for more than 30 years, Singh was found to have a “poor understanding” of his obligations and was unable to answer basic questions at the hearing, at times giving evasive responses or stating he was unaware of requirements.

Among the most serious findings was a failure to properly maintain his 38-year-old vehicle. The TC heard that routine safety inspections (PMIs) were significantly overdue, with one interval stretching to 208 days—124 days late even against the operator’s declared 12-week schedule.

When assessed against DVSA guidance for older vehicles, which requires a minimum six-week inspection frequency, the gaps were even more severe, with one inspection 166 days overdue. The TC described the extended intervals as “totally unacceptable” and said they clearly put road safety at risk.

Brake testing was also found to be inadequate throughout. In several instances no meaningful laden brake tests were carried out, meaning the operator could not confirm that braking systems were functioning properly under load, in breach of legal requirements. On multiple occasions, roadworthiness declarations were therefore deemed unreliable.

The operator also failed to provide evidence of driver defect reporting, with a safety-critical defect—an inoperative brake light—identified at inspection but not previously recorded.

Singh’s MOT record was described as “absolutely appalling”, with six consecutive failures, including one abandoned test. The Commissioner said this demonstrated a clear disregard for road safety, noting that a failed MOT indicates a vehicle was already unroadworthy prior to testing.

The TC added: “Mr Sukhvinder Singh’s appalling MOT history says volumes to me about his attitude to ensuring road safety. No single vehicle operator can ever say from an MOT track record like this that they were taking road safety seriously.”

The inquiry also heard that Singh had left the UK for an extended period—likely several months—without notifying the Traffic Commissioner of the material change, and had handed full control of the transport operation to a driver during his absence. ANPR evidence showed the vehicle continued operating extensively during this time, with 257 detections recorded.

TC Dorrington found there had been no effective management oversight and that Singh had either failed to cooperate with DVSA or was absent for longer than stated.

In addition, Singh had undertaken no relevant operator licence training and had not engaged with key guidance such as the DVSA’s “Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness”, despite being expected to know and apply it.

The TC concluded that multiple core undertakings had been breached, including failing to keep vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, failing to ensure defects were properly reported and recorded, and failing to maintain adequate maintenance records.

While some limited credit was given— including eventually passing an MOT and accepting responsibility—the Commissioner said the “substantial” weight of the negative findings far outweighed any positives.

The case was assessed at the top end of “severe to serious” regulatory action, involving reckless or persistent failures that compromised road safety.

The TC concluded revocation was the only proportionate outcome.

Although no formal disqualification order was imposed, the Commissioner warned Singh had come “as close as an operator can come” to being barred from holding a licence.

He also issued a formal warning that any operation of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes after the revocation date of 5 April 2026, would be unlawful and could result in impounding action by DVSA.

The Commissioner said Singh would only have a realistic prospect of obtaining a new licence if he undertakes formal training, demonstrates understanding of maintenance requirements, adopts a six-week inspection regime for his vehicle and submits to an independent maintenance audit.

The decision underlines the regulator’s focus on preventative action, with the Commissioner emphasising that intervention is necessary where operators’ conduct creates a risk to road and public safety, regardless of whether an incident has occurred.