A scaffolding firm whose directors lied to the DVSA, falsified and backdated vehicle defect records, and failed to address serious maintenance and load security problems has had its HGV licence revoked, following a public inquiry.
In a recently published ruling Deputy Traffic Commissioner Giles Pengelly said he could no longer trust directors Martin Ray and David Price of Birmingham-based Mr Scaffolding to run a compliant operation.
The company’s licence was revoked with effect from 11.45pm on 14 July 2026, following a public inquiry in Birmingham on 26 May.
The decision followed a DVSA maintenance investigation triggered by a prohibition issued on 10 November 2025, when one of the company’s drivers was stopped near Stafford with an insecure load and given a fixed penalty notice.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner found that the company had subsequently sent correspondence to the DVSA containing deliberate lies about its safety procedures, including claims that driver defect report (DDR) books had been in use and that vehicle defects had been recorded before preventative maintenance inspections (PMIs).
However it emerged that the operator had not been using DDR books before the November 2025 incident. The Commissioner found that defect records had been created retrospectively and backdated to give the impression that a functioning safety system had been in place.
Ray had also lied directly to the vehicle examiner during the DVSA’s visit, claiming there was insufficient storage space for the missing DDR books.
Pengelly described the falsification of records as a determined attempt to mislead the regulator and said the directors had read the letters before they were sent.
He rejected suggestions that the directors had simply been following professional advice, stating that anyone involved in operator licensing should understand the seriousness of lying to the DVSA about road safety records.
The inquiry also found that the company had failed to address recurring problems with insecure loads despite previous enforcement action and driver training.
Pengelly concluded that the company’s driver training had not been sufficiently emphatic or frequent and that the directors had failed to supervise drivers adequately to ensure loads were secured correctly.
He found that the lack of effective action between March 2024 and November 2025 had created an ongoing road safety risk.
The Commissioner also identified serious shortcomings in the company’s vehicle maintenance arrangements, including failures to carry out brake tests during PMIs.
Pengelly said: “The lack of a brake test, at all – set against this operator’s history, above – is completely unacceptable.”
He added that poor quality PMIs had imperilled road safety and undercut competitors operating compliantly.
The company had blamed problems on its maintenance providers, but the Commissioner said its responsibility was to ensure vehicles received the maintenance they needed, regardless of who was carrying out the work.
The inquiry also found that wheel security and tyre safety checks were inadequately documented. It was also revealed that the operator did not have an effective driver defect reporting system before November 2025, meaning drivers were not properly integrated into its safety procedures.
Although DDR books were introduced after the DVSA’s maintenance investigation, driver-detectable defects continued to be identified at almost every PMI between November 2025 and May 2026 without corresponding defect reports.
Pengelly concluded that drivers were still not carrying out walkaround checks properly and that the operator had failed to integrate them effectively into its safety system.
He stressed that responsibility for vehicle safety could not be passed to a maintenance provider.
“Safety and maintenance issues are always the operator’s problem,” he said in the decision.
The operator appointed new consultants in late April 2026, who delivered additional training on load security and driver walkaround checks. The company also introduced a master log to record wheel-nut torque checks and increased Ray’s direct involvement in supervising drivers.
Pengelly praised the consultants and acknowledged that improvements had been made. He also noted the company’s excellent MOT performance, with a reported failure rate of 0%.
However, he concluded that the changes had come too late to restore confidence in the directors, noting that the company had been given a clear indication of the shortcomings in its safety arrangements following the DVSA’s maintenance investigation in December 2025, but had made little progress over the following months.
The Commissioner was particularly critical of the failure to ensure that loaded brake tests were being carried out, despite the operator having explicitly promised the DVSA they would be.
He also criticised Ray for minimising the significance of defects identified during inspections and for repeatedly blaming the company’s former consultant for failings for which the directors were ultimately responsible.
Pengelly said the operator’s improvement had largely resulted from the intervention of its new consultants, rather than action taken by the directors themselves.
He placed the case at the upper end of the “serious” category of regulatory action, having considered the risks to road safety, the attempts to conceal failures and the impact on fair competition.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner considered alternatives to revocation, including a temporary suspension and a reduction in the number of authorised vehicles. However, he concluded that these measures would not adequately address the seriousness of the findings.
He said the company’s deception had been particularly serious because it was intended to prevent further scrutiny of matters directly affecting road safety.
The Commissioner said he could have taken a more lenient approach if the directors had demonstrated sufficient remorse, openness, insight into their wrongdoing and a determination to put matters right.
Instead, he concluded that the directors had failed to take full responsibility for the company’s past conduct and had waited until the last minute to make meaningful improvements.
Pengelly said: “Unfortunately, I do not trust the directors of this operator to hold a goods licence.”
He added: “The operator had the clearest warning possible in December 2025 and did not react to it decisively or quickly enough.”
In reaching his decision, Pengelly said there was insufficient evidence that the directors could consistently implement the safety systems required by the DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness.
He concluded: “I have decided that I cannot trust this operator to run a compliant operation.”
The licence was revoked under sections 26(1)(h), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, relating to fitness to hold a licence, breaches of undertakings and prohibitions.
Despite revoking the company’s licence, Pengelly decided not to disqualify Ray or Price from holding an operator’s licence in the future.
He said the revocation itself would have a potentially catastrophic effect on the directors and their business, and that further regulatory action against them personally was not necessary to protect road safety or fair competition.
However, he said any future application by the directors, or an entity they control, would need to demonstrate that they had learned the lessons of the inquiry and could ensure appropriate supervision of the transport operation.
