A road haulage licence does not have to fail because of a single catastrophic breach. Sometimes it collapses due to a steady accumulation of unresolved issues: missed notifications, weak systems, poor cooperation, and an apparent attempt to operate while avoiding scrutiny. A recent decision by the Traffic Commissioner for Great Britain offers a textbook example of how that process unfolds and why interim suspension can be imposed even before a public inquiry is concluded.
In a decision issued on 8 January 2026, the Traffic Commissioner ordered the immediate suspension of the operator’s licence held by Jones Haulage Ltd, citing serious concerns over regulatory trust, safety and a persistent failure to engage with enforcement authorities.
The licence was suspended with effect from 23:45 on 9 January 2026, pending further direction from the Traffic Commissioner. During the suspension period, none of the vehicles specified on the licence may be used or transferred to another operator’s licence. Any breach would expose the operator to further offences and potential impounding by DVSA.
Crucially, the suspension was imposed as a condition for granting an adjournment of the scheduled public inquiry, rather than following a full hearing on the merits. The Commissioner concluded that allowing the operator to continue trading without interim action would not be “safe or fair to other operators”.
Read more: Spanish transport will be flooded with Turkish drivers: a staffing revolution is on the way
A pattern of non-compliance, not a single incident
The decision sets out a long list of issues which, taken together, met the starting point for licence revocation under the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory guidance.
Among the most significant were repeated failures to notify material changes within the required timescales, including changes to directors and ownership. While Companies House records showed multiple changes during 2024 and 2025, several of these were either notified late to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner or not notified at all, breaching explicit licence undertakings.
The Commissioner also highlighted uncertainty around the role and conduct of the transport manager. Although a new transport manager was formally accepted in June 2025, DVSA records showed that a former transport manager’s online account continued to be used months later to add and remove vehicles from the licence. That raised questions about effective and continuous management of transport activities.
DVSA intervention and failure to cooperate
The case was triggered in part by a DVSA roadside encounter in October 2024, when one of the operator’s vehicles was issued with multiple immediate and delayed roadworthiness prohibitions, including defects relating to brakes and tyres, as well as an offence for having no vehicle excise licence.
Although the operator and transport manager provided assurances following that encounter, the Traffic Commissioner requested a DVSA desk-based assessment to verify whether those assurances were reflected in the operator’s systems. According to the decision, that assessment never properly took place.
The operator failed to cooperate with DVSA and the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, providing only limited information and, in the Commissioner’s words, gaining “many months without its systems receiving the scrutiny required”. This behaviour was described as a “gross breach of trust”.
The limited data that was eventually supplied pointed to further compliance failures, including extensive driving without a digital tachograph card, with no explanations recorded on vehicle utilisation reports.
Untaxed vehicles and continuing risk
The decision also draws attention to the status of several vehicles linked to the licence. DVLA data showed that some vehicles removed from the licence had been untaxed for months, while at least one vehicle added in late 2025 had already been untaxed at the time it was specified. Another vehicle remained on the licence for months after the earlier roadside encounter, despite having no valid tax.
While the operator had a 100% MOT pass rate and no further recorded roadside encounters, the Commissioner noted that annual MOTs alone do not demonstrate ongoing compliance, particularly where other indicators point in the opposite direction.
“Wanting to operate but avoid scrutiny”
By the time of the scheduled public inquiry on 8 January 2026, none of the case management directions had been complied with. The hearing bundle had not been accessed on the Case Centre system, and key documents, including financial evidence, had not been provided.
The Traffic Commissioner concluded that the operator’s conduct showed a continuing desire to operate vehicles while avoiding regulatory oversight. Given the cumulative nature of the concerns, she ruled that an adjournment without interim action would undermine confidence in the licensing system.
The suspension will remain in force unless and until the operator fully complies with the original information requests. Failing that, the Commissioner indicated she would be prepared to conclude the case on the papers without a further hearing.
