M&M Catering Supplies has had its operator licence revoked and director Mehmet Sert disqualified for 12 months after a Traffic Commissioner found repeated maintenance and compliance shortcomings.
The decision by Rakesh Sharma, Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the West of England, was published on 13 August and follows the operator’s third public inquiry in less than four years.
The company’s licence was revoked with effect from 1 August 2026. Sert was disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator licence in Great Britain for 12 months from the same date.
The regulator found that M&M Catering Supplies, which is based in London, had failed to meet undertakings relating to vehicle inspections, vehicle maintenance and driver defect reporting.
The case centred on a series of shortcomings identified through DVSA investigations and two independent audits.
The company had previously appeared before a public inquiry in September 2022 following a history of overloading offences.
It was given a formal warning and undertook to add a 7.5-tonne vehicle to its licence and fit all authorised vehicles with onboard weighing systems.
A new licence was subsequently granted in February 2023, authorising four vehicles.
In August 2024, one of the company’s vehicles, CA66 HPO, was stopped by DVSA and received an S-marked prohibition for tyre defects and an inoperative lamp.
A subsequent maintenance investigation found a number of issues, including overloaded vehicles, two seriously damaged tyres, an emissions warning light and a 100% MOT failure rate. Some light goods vehicles were also presented for MOT in a dangerous condition.
The licence was allowed to continue, subject to a number of undertakings, including eight-weekly inspections of the company’s light goods vehicles, continued use of a transport consultant and independent audits of maintenance and loading.
However, an audit submitted in July 2025 still contained multiple failings. A follow-up audit received in March 2026 showed that several problems remained, including issues that had already been highlighted in the earlier audit.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner identified a number of factors that increased the seriousness of the case, including ineffective management control, insufficient driver training and monitoring, inadequate evidence of changes to improve compliance, road-safety-critical defects and an S-marked prohibition, low MOT pass rates and previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigations and public inquiries.
Specific shortcomings included vehicles not being inspected at the required intervals, driver-detectable defects not being recorded, defects on vehicle WX23 TCO appearing in both audits and a missed manufacturer’s safety recall on FJ22 UYC.
The company’s light goods vehicles had also not been inspected in accordance with an undertaking previously given to the Traffic Commissioner.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner was also concerned about M&M’s finances. Evidence submitted ahead of the inquiry showed average available funds of £4,270, below the £8,200 required for a restricted licence authorising four vehicles.
Sert argued that he had 29 years’ experience of holding goods vehicle licences and had introduced additional compliance support and digital recording systems.
However, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was unimpressed by the explanations given for the continuing shortcomings, noting that compliance support had already been in place before the audits.
The decision states that the regulator formed the view that Sert “either thought he knew best or that he simply disregarded undertakings and requirements.”
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner also noted that Sert had attended three public inquiries in less than four years and concluded that he could not be trusted to operate a compliant business in the future.
The regulator considered whether reducing the licence to one vehicle would be sufficient, but rejected the option because the compliance failures had occurred while the company was already operating only one HGV.
The TC added: “Given my conclusions as to whether he could be trusted to run a compliant operation in the future and the likely limited impact on the business I had no hesitation in concluding Mr Sert should be disqualified.
“I therefore concluded that Mr Sert should be disqualified from holding or obtaining any operators licence in any traffic area within Great Britain or being a director in any company who holds or applies for such license.
“I found no reason to impose the disqualification for a longer period than the statutory minimum therefore this disqualification shall be for 12 months.”
The licence was revoked under sections 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
Sert was disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator licence, or acting as a director of a company holding or applying for one, for one year.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner said the revocation would not necessarily bring M&M’s business to an end, as the company had previously operated using smaller light goods vehicles.
