A Deputy Traffic Commissioner in Great Britain’s North West traffic area has refused JK-RAUS Ltd’s application for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence for five vehicles and five trailers, citing concerns over good repute and professional competence.
According to the written decision, the company’s sole director and nominated transport manager, Jozef Kraus, previously held the same roles at JV Trade Ltd, which was called to a public inquiry in August 2021. The case involved serious maintenance concerns, issues linked to the operating centre, and the use of self-employed drivers in circumstances considered inappropriate under HMRC guidance and the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory documents. The maintenance investigation cited multiple “unsatisfactory” outcomes in key assessment areas.
At that 2021 public inquiry, the Traffic Commissioner curtailed JV Trade Ltd’s fleet to four vehicles and four trailers, issued a formal warning, and accepted several undertakings, including commitments to submit a parking plan, move drivers onto PAYE contracts, and complete an audit with an action plan.
Undertakings were not met
The decision states that none of the undertakings was complied with, despite reminders from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC). Mr Kraus later requested an extension, which was granted, but the revised deadline also passed without compliance or explanation.
The OTC subsequently issued “propose to revoke” correspondence in January 2022, and JV Trade Ltd’s licence was revoked in February 2022.
After the revocation, JV Trade Ltd entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation and was dissolved in October 2023. The decision concerns substantial unpaid debts to creditors, including sums owed to HMRC, banks, and employees (amounts are redacted in the published version).
Disputed application answers and inconsistent explanations
When applying for the new licence in September 2025, Mr Kraus disclosed the earlier public inquiry and revocation, but answered “No” to a question asking whether anyone named in the application had been involved with a business that went into liquidation owing money. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner said the insolvency history was later disclosed by a transport consultant, but raised doubts about whether it would have been revealed otherwise.
Mr Kraus also relied on health-related explanations for previous non-compliance, but the Deputy Traffic Commissioner found the accounts inconsistent and said the medical evidence submitted did not establish a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the undertakings or communicate properly with the OTC.
“Gatekeepers to the industry”
In refusing the application, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner cited case law emphasising that, when dealing with an application, Traffic Commissioners act as “gatekeepers” deciding whether to grant their “official seal of approval”.
He concluded that, based on past conduct and the lack of trust in future compliance, he was not satisfied that the operator or the proposed transport manager had good repute, and was also not satisfied that the applicant had professional competence.
More Traffic Commissioner cases
Fitness “tarnished”: operator hit with one-month curtailment after DVSA findings
How a haulage licence bleeds out: Traffic Commissioner suspension explained
Haulier stripped of licence over tyre safety failures and ‘nil defect’ paperwork
Traffic Commissioner puts a price tag on knowingly running overloaded vehicles
