Bentincks Ltd, which holds a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising 10 vehicles and 4 trailers, was curtailed by two vehicles for one month from 23:45 on 28 January 2026, according to a written decision published on the UK government website by the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain. During that period, the vehicles were barred from being operated on any licence, the decision states.
The written confirmation was issued by Ruth Turfitt, Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish traffic area, following a public inquiry held in Edinburgh on 27 January 2026.
A return to a public inquiry
The operator had previously appeared at a public inquiry in August 2021 after an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation, resulting in a curtailment at the time and a series of undertakings covering areas such as brake testing, inspection facilities, tyre checks and defect reporting, as recorded in the decision.
In the current case, the commissioner said the operator’s fitness was “tarnished” and that, while improvements were evident in parts of the operation, “there was a need for deterrent action to spur on compliance efforts”.
The trigger: tachograph issues and driver control
According to the ruling, the chain of events leading to renewed regulatory action included a roadside encounter on 10 October 2024 involving vehicle GX10 XFR, where it was found that the vehicle had been driven without a driver card on two occasions immediately before the driver inserted his card. The driver claimed the driving had taken place on private land and that, on advice, a record was not required.
DVSA inquiries continued in January 2025, when a traffic examiner issued a statutory notice requiring documentation relating to the management of operations and drivers’ hours, followed by a visit to the operator in March 2025, the decision says. Concerns recorded in the ruling included two drivers described as “self-employed” who were working elsewhere and “not under the direct control of the operator”, as well as additional tachograph-related issues, including incorrect mode switch use and another period of driving without a card.
The decision also describes repeated attempts by the DVSA examiner to obtain a response from the operator during spring 2025, with correspondence and chasers going unanswered until a response arrived via a consultant.
Maintenance investigation: brake tests, records and annual test results
A further maintenance investigation followed later in 2025. Vehicle Examiner Peter Hodgson began work in August, with the site visit rescheduled after the operator shut down for the summer, the ruling notes.
Among the shortcomings summarised in the decision were:
- Inspection and maintenance records: of 43 records checked, 29 did not record a brake test, and some inspections were not signed off as roadworthy. One inspection was overdue, and the vehicle-off-road (VOR) process required improvement.
- Driver defect reporting: the examiner recorded instances where driver-detectable defects were left until scheduled inspections, and defects were not always signed off as rectified.
- Inspection arrangements: the decision describes concerns about whether inspections were being carried out in a way that met earlier undertakings, including the ability to fully inspect articulated units.
- Annual test history: the ruling notes a poor test history and records additional test outcomes following the investigation, including passes, a pass after rectification (PRS) and initial failures.
Wheel and tyre management: worn tread and wheel security
Wheel and tyre management features heavily in the maintenance findings.
The decision records an example involving vehicle GX10 XFR, where a tyre was measured with a minimum tread depth of 1.43mm in the centre of the tread and was not reported by the driver. It also states that there was no system in place for wheel security recording and that torque tags were not employed at the time of the investigation.
Later documentation showed a mixed picture, according to the commissioner’s summary of the update report. The ruling says that an improvement in brake testing at a proper facility was evident, but “issues remain”, including continuing concerns over the scrutiny of documentation and wheel-loss risk.
The decision highlights a case where nearside wheel nuts were found insecure at a preventative maintenance inspection on 5 January 2026 (vehicle YN13 RXC). The remedial action was recorded as re-torquing, but the report cited in the ruling said best practice would have involved removing the wheel to investigate potential damage rather than simply re-torquing.
The commissioner also notes discrepancies and gaps in records (including tyre-related records), and states that while the risk of wheel loss was identified, there appeared to have been “a lack of scrutiny” of documentation such as tread depths and tyre age.
Operator response: training, reporting, new provider
The written decision documents a package of remedial actions proposed by the operator, including additional driver training on walkaround checks and defect reporting, new processes for defect sheets, and changes to wheel security practices. It also states the operator decided to change maintenance provider, citing capacity constraints at the previous provider.
In a signed statement dated 26 January 2026, director Balal Ajmee acknowledged shortcomings and accepted that limited director oversight had contributed to them, the ruling says.
Why did the commissioner curtail the licence?
In her findings, the traffic commissioner recorded adverse findings under several sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act, including provisions relating to prohibitions, statements and undertakings about inspection intervals and vehicle condition, and tachograph and records compliance.
While many issues were described as historic, the commissioner said it remained to be seen whether the operator would demonstrate sustained scrutiny of its systems, adding that the case fell within a “moderate” starting bracket for regulatory intervention. She concluded that a one-month curtailment of two vehicles was an appropriate deterrent measure.
