Cameron Young - Traffic Commissioner's Decision

IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
UNDER THE GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995

(“the Act”)
DECISION
BY
RICHARD HAMILTON McFARLANE

DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
IN THE CASE
OF
CAMERON YOUNG TRANSPORT LIMITED

[LICENCE NUMBER OM1063486]
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
i) At Edinburgh on 9th and 10th June 2010 I held a Public Inquiry to

consider issues investigated by the Vehicle and Operators Services
Agency (“VOSA”) which disclosed allegations that (a) drivers
employed by Cameron Young Transport Limited (“the operator”) had
committed drivers’ hours and tachograph offences (b) the Standard
International Goods Vehicles Operators Licence held by the operator
was renewed when the operator was in liquidation (c) the liquidation
of the operator had not been notified to the Traffic Commissioner (d)
unauthorised vehicular use and (e) unauthorised use of premises as an
operating centre.
ii) In attendance at the Public Inquiry was Mr Michael S Allan,

solicitor, Aberdeen. He had been instructed to represent the interests
of Mr Cameron John Young (“Mr Young”) the sole director of the
operator and the operator’s Transport Manager, Mr Alexander
Clockworthy Young (“Mr Sandy Young”). Neither Mr Young nor Mr
Sandy Young were present. Mr Allan explained that he had been
principally instructed by both of them to represent their interests at
their respective driver conduct hearings, which had been called, to
coincide with the Public Inquiry. He was not representing the interests
of the operator.
iii) Mr Allan explained that Mr Young was “stressed” and considered

himself to be unfit to attend. No medical evidence was produced. Mr
Allan was able to satisfy me that Mr Young was well aware of the
Public Inquiry and the drivers’ conduct hearing and that he had
received intimation of the hearings and all the papers. So far as Mr
Sandy Young was concerned the medical certification produced by Mr
Allan confirmed his poor state of health and that he was presently
medically unfit to attend. He would not be able to understand the
proceedings due to vascular dementia. The medical prognosis for Mr
Sandy Young is that it is likely that he will never be fit to attend.
iv) I accepted the position with regard to Mr Sandy Young. I did not
accept the explanation for the non-attendance of Mr Young. From my
perusal of the papers there appeared to have been a failure to cooperate
with the Traffic Examiners throughout their investigation into the
operator. Accordingly, and as provided for in Regulation 5(7) of the
Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 (“the
Regulations”), I informed Mr Allan that the Public Inquiry would
proceed in the absence of Mr Young. After an adjournment Mr Allan
informed me that he had contacted Mr Young. He had instruction from
Mr Young with regard to his repute. Mr Young expected to lose his
good repute.
v) Mr Allan was also instructed to represent the interests of drivers,

Craig Currie, Gilbert Johnstone, Bruce Kirkpatrick, William
McKenzie, Robert Pollock, Thomas Paterson and Martin Smith who
with the exception of driver Paterson were all in attendance. On their
behalf he invited me to adjourn their drivers’ conduct hearings as he
had had insufficient time to prepare. The three remaining drivers who
were also in attendance namely drivers James Curzon, Luthan
McCubbin and Ian Shaw did not wish to be represented. They all
wanted to be heard. They did not wish an adjournment. I decided that
it was unlikely that the Public Inquiry and the driver conduct hearings
for these three drivers would conclude in the two days assigned. I
granted Mr Allan’s invitation to adjourn the cases involving his
clients. I allowed Mr Allan to withdraw from the Public Inquiry.
vi) Driver Anthony Jeffrey had not responded to his “call up” letter. As
driver Conway was (now) resident at an address in England, it was not
competent for the Secretary of State to refer “his” case to the Traffic
Commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area.
vii) Traffic Examiners Mr John Quinn (“Mr Quinn”) and Mrs Evelyn
Hill (“Mrs Hill”) were in attendance for VOSA. Mr Michael Fisher,
solicitor, Carlisle, represented the interests of VOSA.
viii) The Public Inquiry involved Mr Fisher leading evidence from Mr

Quinn and Mrs Hill focusing on their reports prepared for the Public
Inquiry and the evidence they had obtained in respect of all the said
drivers with specific reference to Mr Young and Mr Sandy Young. I
then held the driver conduct hearings for drivers James Curzon,
Luthan McCubbin and Iain Shaw. Finally, Mr Fisher treated me to his
concluding submission on behalf of VOSA. I adjourned the Public
Inquiry to consider all issues and to issue a written decision.
ix) I formally warned driver Curzon with regard to his conduct as the
driver of a motor vehicle. I adjourned the cases of drivers McCubbin
and Shaw to consider the evidence and give my decisions in writing. I
immediately suspended the large goods vehicle driving licence held by
Mr Young pending his appearance before me.
PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS
x) Inter alia the call up letter dated 4th May 2010 gave the operator
notice that at the Public Inquiry I would also be considering the
vocational large goods vehicle driving licences held by 14 drivers.
Each driver had received a “call up” letter requiring his attendance at a
driver’s conduct hearing. There was no notice given to any of the
drivers that their respective hearings were to take place on the same
occasion as the Public Inquiry.
xi) In recent times, I have had concerns and reservations about

“conjoining” Public Inquiries with driver conduct hearings. They
involve two separate and distinct jurisdictions. The Act deals with
goods vehicles operators’ licences. The Road Traffic Act 1988 deals
with vocational driving licences. There is no cross-reference between
these two pieces of legislation in respect of these two very distinct and
separate licences. Each such licence “stands alone”. Accordingly,
when application is made for either type of licence, the application
will be considered on its own merits and will be granted or refused in
accordance with the criteria for the licence applied for as set out in the
relevant legislation.
xii) Similarly, if concerns arise with regard to the fitness of a licence

holder to continue to hold either type of licence then such issues will
be determined in accordance with the relevant legislation.
xiii) In the case of HJ Oakes Ltd 25/2002 the Transport Tribunal

expressed the preference that a driver’s conduct inquiry should be
held at the same time as an operator's inquiry where there was a
possibility of conflict in evidence “so that all issues of fact are
resolved at the same time.” The Transport Tribunal endorsed this view
when it revisited the topic in the case of NR Evans and Son Ltd
2005/56. The last two sentences in that decision read as follows “We
do not agree with the submission that s.116 of the Road Traffic Act
1988 precludes questioning otherwise from the Traffic Commissioner.
If a driver does refuse to answer a question from an advocate, this can
anyway be repeated by the Traffic Commissioner, with the statutory
sanction. I appreciate that this decision is binding on traffic
commissioners. However I respectfully question whether this is a
correct interpretation of the legislation as the role of the traffic
commissioner is to ask the holder of the vocational licence such
questions as he deems appropriate to make the determination as to
fitness to continue to hold the licence.
xiv) The starting point for my concerns is the basis upon which a driver
called to a driver’s conduct hearing is obliged to participate at such a
hearing. It is a statutory basis as provided for in Subsection (3) of
Section 116 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is in the following
terms:-
“A traffic commissioner to whom a reference has been

made under subsection (1) above may require the
holder of the licence to furnish the commissioner with
such information as he may require and may, by
notice to the holder, require him to attend before the
commissioner at the time and place specified by the
commissioner and to furnish the information and to
answer such questions (if any) relating to the subject
matter of the reference as the commissioner may put
to him.”
xv) Accordingly, at a driver’s conduct hearing the licence holder is

obliged to furnish the traffic commissioner with such information as
the traffic commissioner requires to assist the traffic commissioner in
determining whether or not the driver is fit to continue to hold the
vocational entitlement. It is not an occasion where the driver is open
to cross-examination by or on behalf of the operator where the
operator is in attendance at Public Inquiry for the operator’s licence.
The information obtained by the traffic commissioner can only be
used in assisting in the determination as to whether or not the driver is
fit to continue to hold the vocational licence. It is not information or
evidence that can be properly used in determining issues associated
with the operator's licence as there is no opportunity to test that
evidence by way of cross-examination. I understand that this was
recognised by the Transport Tribunal in the HJ Oakes Ltd case.
xvi) It therefore follows that any evidence that is led in connection with
the operator's licence cannot be relevant evidence in assisting the
traffic commissioner to determine whether or not the driver is fit to
continue to hold the vocational licence as the driver has not been
called to give evidence at the Public Inquiry. The only information the
traffic commissioner is entitled to elicit from the licence holder must
relate to the subject matter of the reference.
xvii) There is also a jurisdictional aspect to all of this. In terms of the Act
the traffic commissioner has and continues to have jurisdiction over
the operator's licence issued by him or her. The traffic commissioner
does not have jurisdiction over the vocational licence granted by the
Secretary of State. Any question arising regarding the fitness of a
driver to continue to hold a vocational licence may be referred by the
Secretary of State to the traffic commissioner for the area in which the
holder of the licence resides (Section 116 (1)(b) of the Road Traffic
Act 1988). In an extreme situation VOSA may have carried out an
investigation in Scotland into an operator's licence which has resulted
in serious alleged offences having been committed by drivers
employed by the operator all of who live in England. In such a
situation the operator's licence will be considered at a Public Inquiry
in Scotland. The Traffic Commissioner for Scotland is in the position
whereby she cannot require the attendance of any of the drivers as she
does not have jurisdiction over them. They can only be referred by
the Secretary of State to the appropriate traffic commissioner south of
the border to make a determination regarding their fitness to continue
to hold the vocational licence. Driver Conway is a case in point. I
appreciate that whilst my Instrument of Appointment allows me to
assist in all Traffic Areas in the United Kingdom it does not give me
jurisdiction over drivers who are resident furth of Scotland. I cannot
prorogate the jurisdiction.
xviii) The ordering of a Public Inquiry is governed by Section 35(1) and

Schedule 4 of the Act which vests the traffic commissioner with
discretion to hold such an Inquiry as he thinks necessary for the
proper exercise of his functions under the Act. The Regulations
govern the ordering of public inquiries. In particular, Regulations 5
the relevant part of which provides:-
5-(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Schedule, the

traffic commissioner shall determine the procedure at an
inquiry.
(2) Subject to subparagraph (5), a person entitled to

appear at an inquiry in accordance with paragraph 3 of this
Schedule shall be entitled to give evidence, call witnesses, to
cross-examine witnesses and to address the traffic
commissioner both on the evidence and generally on the
subject matter of the proceeding.
(3) The giving of evidence, the calling of witnesses, the

cross-examination of witnesses and the making of such
addresses by other persons appearing at an inquiry shall be at
the traffic commissioner's discretion.
xix) Whilst there is provision in the Regulations for the conjoining of

Public Inquiries there is no express provision to conjoin a Public
Inquiry with a driver conduct hearing. That said the traffic
commissioner has a limited discretion to determine the procedure to
be followed at an Inquiry. Inter alia that discretion covers the giving
of evidence, the calling of witnesses and the cross-examination of
witnesses. Regulation 5(2) permits a person entitled to appear at a
public inquiry to give evidence and to call witnesses.
xx) In cases involving Sections 26 and 27 of the Act it is the

commissioner who must be satisfied of the ground of revocation. It is
not for the licence holder to satisfy him to the contrary (Muck It Ltd &
Others v Secretary of State for Transport (2005) EWCA Civ 1124).
For this to be achieved evidence is invariably led from VOSA. That
evidence is given by VOSA representatives who are available for
cross-examination by or on behalf of the licence holder.
xxi) In recent years the practice has developed of holding the Public
Inquiry and then the driver conduct hearing (or vice versa) and giving
decisions at the end of the “conjoined” hearing(s). If I am correct in
my approach as hereinbefore discussed I then have concerns as to
whether it is in fact possible to resolve all issues of fact where there is
conflict in the evidence led at the Public Inquiry and at the drivers’
conduct hearings as the evidence cannot be properly tested by cross
examination.
xxii) Against this background, I have come to the view that the only fair,
safe and proper approach in these cases is to consider each licence
whether it be an operator's licence or a driver's vocational licence
independently and on its own. In this case, the evidence generated by
the Traffic Examiners in conjunction with those of the drivers who
were interviewed does form part of the case for VOSA.
xxiii) That said this case brings into sharp focus the weight to be given to
information given by drivers when being interviewed by VOSA as
part of their investigation into the operator. Invariably, such
interviews take place after the licence holder has been cautioned. The
drivers who were interviewed in this case were interviewed under
caution. When interviewed by the Traffic Examiners drivers Luthan
McCubbin and Ian Shaw denied any wrong doing which did not sit
easily with the evidence available to the Traffic Examiners. At their
respective driver conduct hearings these two drivers readily admitted
to me that they had been less than candid with the Traffic Examiners.
Their answers were not truthful. They told me that they had
committed the offences and created false records all as discovered by
the Traffic Examiners. Accordingly I require to look very closely at
the VOSA evidence in light of any contrary position adopted by a
driver at the time of interview with the traffic examiners.
THE CASE FOR VOSA
xxiv) Mr Fisher invited that the reports compiled by Mr Quinn and Mrs
Hill be accepted as tendered to the Public Inquiry. He led evidence
from Mr Quinn and Mrs Hill. I asked such questions as I deemed
necessary for clarification of some of the issues spoken to by them.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF VOSA BY Mr FISHER
xxv) At the outset of his submission Mr Fisher stated that any comments
he made about Mr Young also applied to the operator. He submitted
that the VOSA investigation raised many significant concerns.
xxvi) From their initial contact with Mr Young, the Traffic Examiners
were greeted by obstruction and prevarication on a grand scale. Mr
Young told them that the records they were interested in were at his
house. On arrival at his house Mr Quinn was suspicious as he did not
see any evidence of record keeping. There were no records there. Mr
Young informed the Traffic Examiners that a Mr Ian Nisbet would
know where the records were. Mr Fisher queried why Mr Young had
told the Traffic Examiners that the records would be at his house
when he knew they were not there.
xxvii) On 2nd April 2009, as agreed, Mr Young attended at the Goods

Vehicle Test Station at Bishopbriggs with a box containing a “neat”
selection of records. Mr Fisher recalled that Mr Quinn believed that
Mr Young had sorted out the records and presented the Traffic
Examiners with only the records he wished them to see.
xxviii) By 22nd April 2009, all the records required by the Traffic
Examiners for the period of their investigation should have been with
the operator. On attendance at Mr Young's house that day and in the
absence of Mr Young they spoke to his wife who was the company
secretary. She had no idea as to the whereabouts of the records.
xxix) Thereafter, Traffic Examiners tried to obtain the records from Mr

Young. They telephoned him. They wrote letters to him. All of this
was to no avail. They discovered that recorded delivery letters were
not collected.
xxx) Their next contact with Mr Young was on 12th October 2010 when
he advised them that the operator may “go under”. Mr Fisher
observed the company was already in liquidation at that date. This
demonstrated a complete lack of candour on the part of Mr Young
which has continued up to the Public Inquiry as evidenced by the
assertion made by his lawyer that no vehicles were being used under
the licence which was clearly not the case.
xxxi) None of the convictions sustained against the operator or any of the
drivers had been reported to the Traffic Commissioner.
xxxii) The brief contains details of prohibition notices and fixed penalties
being issued for the offence of failing to produce records when
required. Mr Fisher submitted that this was highly significant in
relation to the period of investigation.
xxxiii) Mr Young had failed to appear at the Public Inquiry without

reasonable excuse.
xxxiv) Mr Fisher observed that with regard to drivers’ hours offences, the
Traffic Examiners had examined 262 records. They had detected 114
false records, 14 drivers’ hours offences, 45 record offences and 43
instances of aiding and abetting the commission of such offences.
xxxv) The journeys involving the transportation of milk and bananas could
not be completed in the time lawfully available to drivers. Drivers
were being sent abroad on single manned journeys where the journeys
could not be lawfully undertaken by a single driver. The number of
false records detected by the Traffic Examiners is a very significant
proportion of the number of records examined by them. Mr Fisher
submitted that there is always a reason for the falsification of records.
Various methods of falsification had been found. The pattern of
falsification and, in his opinion, the most sinister was drivers using
other drivers’ digital tachograph cards. That practice would not have
been instigated by the drivers. The practice had to come from “the
top”. He submitted that Mr Young had aided and abetted the drivers
concerned in the falsification of their records. His and the view of
VOSA in this regard was endorsed with a comment made by driver
McCubbin after his formal interview with the Traffic Examiners had
concluded when he stated “you’s know fine what's been going on”.
xxxvi) On the topic of missing mileage the Traffic Examiners concluded

that there was a total of 124,641 kms unaccounted for. Any proper
system would not allow such a high level of mileage to be
unaccounted for. This had not been the first time that Mr Young had
been associated with missing mileage. He had previously been spoken
to about it by Traffic Examiners, James Sweetin and Alasdair
McCormick.
xxxvii) There was no evidence of Mr Young taking disciplinary action

against any of the drivers for any of these matters. Mr Quinn had
come across a (disciplinary) letter to driver Carson in connection with
a different incident.
xxxviii) Mr Fisher observed that the Traffic Examiners were missing a lot of
information which should have been available from downloads of
digital data. There were many instances of drivers failing to use their
digital tachograph cards. He posed the question “why?”
xxxix) Turning to repute, Mr Fisher stated that Mr Young had informed the
liquidator that the operator had ceased trading, that all staff had been
paid off and that the vehicles had been returned to the finance
companies. Mr Fisher submitted that Mr Young had lied to the
liquidator. The vehicles had been used by him through 2009 into
2010. He founded this submission on the prohibition notices and
fixed penalties that had been issued to vehicles subsequent to the date
of liquidation. Further vehicles had been specified on the licence after
they had been stopped. Mrs Hill was of the opinion that the operator
had been using more vehicles than were permitted for use under the
licence. Her opinion was based on the absence of company locks on
the digital tachograph recording equipment in the vehicles. There was
evidence that vehicles “found their way onto the licence” months after
Mr Young had entered into finance agreements. Mr Fisher invited me
to hold that it was unlikely that vehicles which were on finance had
not been used from the date of the finance agreement prior to being
specified on the licence.
xl) There was evidence of Mr Young acquiring vehicles after the

operator had ceased trading. The business had been transferred to
Scheleck (UK) Ltd (“Scheleck”), which company Mr Fisher
recognised was not the subject of the Public Inquiry. With that in
mind he observed that two significant contracts one with NR Evans
and and the other with Fyffes were now being fulfilled by Scheleck.
The transport manager of that company was Mr Young's brother Mr
Jamie Young. The director of that company was Mr Young's father-
in-law Mr Matthew Penman. Various addresses had been provided for
this company, including the home address of Mr Young. His mobile
telephone number and fax number are also associated with that
company. He is the main point of contact for each of NR Evans and
Fyffes. A letter from Schelek to the Office of the Traffic
Commissioner in October 2009 had been an attempt to distance this
company from the operator.
xli) There had been two instances of vehicles being used outwith the 28
day period of grace, in which period they should have been specified
on the licence. The Traffic Commissioner had not been informed of
the liquidation of the operator. The medical indisposition of the
transport manager which occurred in the second/third week of
December 2008 had not been intimated to the Traffic Commissioner.
There was evidence of the transport manager driving vehicles in early
December 2008. The matter was compounded with vehicles
remaining on the licence after the operator had been liquidated when
the licence was renewed online in October 2009. The Traffic
Examiners had evidence of work being subcontracted to Mr J
Murdoch who had his operator's licence revoked in 2006 and was
disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence for 10 years.
xlii) With regard to drivers’ pay Mr Fisher reminded me that drivers did
not receive payslips. He submitted that the method of payment of
drivers’ pay and payment for expenses was probably of benefit to the
operator with regard to tax. The address at Cargen Bridge Business
Park, Dumfries was not an authorised operating centre for the
operator.
xliii) Mr Fisher questioned what work had been undertaken by the

operator subsequent to its liquidation? He submitted that the
liquidator would be blissfully unaware of this. He submitted further
that on the face of it I had an operator who appeared to be defrauding
its creditors.
xliv) In terms of repute, Mr Fisher submitted that this was an operator

who had breached its undertakings with regard to adherence to the
drivers’ hours rules and the undertaking to keep proper records
together with the failure to inform the Traffic Commissioner of the
indisposition of the CPC holder.
xlv) He considered that the strongest action against the company

available to me should be taken and that I should consider
disqualification of Mr Young.
xlvi) In conclusion, Mr Fisher submitted that the industry must be sent a

strong message that the conduct of this operator and in particular that
of Mr Young cannot and will not be tolerated. This operator has
shown a complete disregard of the rules and regulations which most
companies abide by. He renewed his invitation to me that I take the
strongest of action against the licence and to disqualify Mr Young.
FINDINGS IN FACT
xlvii) Having resumed consideration of the Public Inquiry Brief

incorporating the various reports from VOSA, the evidence and Mr
Fisher’s submission I find the following facts to be established:-
The licence
1. Cameron Young Transport Ltd (“the operator”) a company

incorporated under the Companies Acts with its registered
office at 226 King Street, Castle Douglas was granted a
Standard International Goods Vehicle Operators Licence
(“the licence”) on 14th November 2006.
2. The sole director of the operator is Mr Cameron John

Young (“Mr Young”) 3 Meadowbank, Kirkton Road,
Heathhall Road, Dumfries. The principal business activity
of the operator is general haulage/distribution.
3. The nominated Transport Manager on the licence is Mr

Alexander Young. The two nominated operating centres on
the licence are at DHL, Irongray Road, Newbridge
Industrial Estate, Dumfries and Howie Forest Products, 2
Callender Road, Ayr. The licence authorises the use of 16
vehicles and 10 trailers.
4. The fee for renewal of the licence was paid on 30th October
2009.
5. During the currency of the licence 30 vehicles have been

specified on it. As at the date of the Public Inquiry, the
following vehicles were specified on the licence, the dates
in brackets are the dates they were first specified, namely
V4 BLS (16th September 2007), S80 RCY (16th September
2007), SY55 CCU (12th November 2008), SY06 AXJ (12th
November 2008), SV08 AYT (12th November 2008), SJ57
GKG (12th November 2008), S80 LAY (12th November
2008), S80 CSY (12th November 2008) SF56 AYC (23rd
January 2007), and FX57 BVL (25th October 2009)
6. The operator did not own any vehicles. The vehicles were
subject to finance agreements with either Haydock Finance
Ltd and Cameron Young t/a Cameron Young Transport or
Scania Truck Rental and Cameron Young Transport Ltd.
Cessation of trading /liquidation
7. In July 2009 the operator ceased trading.
8. On 9th September 2009, a petition on behalf of H M

Customs & Revenue was presented to Kirkcubright Sheriff
Court for the liquidation of the operator. On 1st October
2009, the crave of the petition was granted. Mrs Alison
Anderson, Chartered Accountant, Dumfries was appointed
interim liquidator. On 11th November 2009, she was
appointed liquidator.
9. At the meeting of creditors of the operator held on 11th

November 2009 inter alia Mr Young informed the meeting
that (a) the red tape surrounding the tachograph and drivers’
hours rules attributed to the operator's financial position (b)
all employees had been paid off in July 2009 (b) the leases
for all vehicles were in his name and not in the name of the
operator and (c) all vehicles had been sent back to the
finance companies.
10. In her letter to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner,

dated 12th April 2010, the liquidator enclosed form GV80
(Application to Surrender a Licence) inviting that the
vehicles with the following registration marks be deleted
from the licence namely:- FX57 BVL, S80 GSY, S80 LAY,
S80 RCY, SF58 AYC, SJ57 GKG, SV08 AYT, SY06AXJ,
SY56GCU, SV53 JVX, V8CJY, V8 RCY, LE52 CAM and
V8 CSY. The liquidator declared that the operator licence
discs issued in respect of these vehicles had been lost.
Prelude to the VOSA investigation
11. In February and March 2008, Police Officers of Dumfries

& Galloway Constabulary carried out a Special Operation
and “silent checked” vehicles used under the authority of
the licence in an attempt to ascertain whether the drivers of
these vehicles were adhering to the drivers’ hours rules and
regulations.
12. On 29th May 2008, Traffic Examiner Mr James Sweetin

met Mr Young who produced 276 records relating to 17
vehicles used under the licence during February and March
2008. Mr Sweetin observed that a number of records were
missing. As at the date of the meeting all records should
have been returned to the operator by the drivers in respect
of the said period. Mr Sweetin gave appropriate advice to
Mr Young who gave an assurance that action would be
taken to ensure that all records were returned and a system
would be put in place to ensure there was no further
recurrence of missing records.
13. On 5th November 2008, at a spot check of vehicle SY55

CCU Mr Sweetin noticed that it was not
displaying an operator's identity disc. It was not specified
on the licence. It had been in the possession of the operator
since 9th September 2008. On said 5th November 2008 it
was specified on the licence.
14. On 20th January 2009, Mr Sweetin and Traffic Examiner

Adrienne Nelson met Mr Young at Cargen Bridge Business
Park. Inter alia they required Mr Young to produce records
for the period 1st August to 5th September 2008 relating to
vehicles MX06 BZF, LE52 BLS, SF04 TVL, V4 BLS and
S80 RCY as records for these vehicles provided by the
operator at an earlier time were incomplete.
15. On 24th January 2009, Mr Sweetin and Alasdhair

McCormick met Mr Young at Cargen Bridge Business
Park. Mr Young produced records referred to in the
immediately preceding finding in fact. They were
incomplete as there was missing mileage between the
records produced. Mr Young did not produce any records
for SF04 TVL. Mr Young informed said Traffic Examiners
that after the police investigation in May 2008 steps had
been taken to identify missing records and prevent any
recurrence. He also informed them that the operator used a
log sheet/diary to record vehicle movements to assist in
identifying which driver drove a particular vehicle all with
a view to avoiding missing records in the future.
The VOSA investigation
16. The investigation was initiated as a consequence of the

Regional Intelligence Unit of VOSA receiving
information/intelligence that the operator was operating in
breach of the drivers’ hours rules and regulations together
with alleged use of an un-authorised operating centre and
that more vehicles were being used than the operator was
authorised for. In addition, it had been alleged that the
operator made use of hire vehicles for short periods and did
not keep proper records.
17. VOSA decided to carry out a check on all drivers

employed by the operator between 1st December 2008 and
25th January 2009. The investigation was carried out by Mr
Quinn, Mrs Hill and Vehicle Examiner Mr James Reape.
18. At the time of the investigation the operator had 15

vehicles in possession and no trailers.
19. The case for VOSA does not raise any issues associated
with maintenance.
20. The computerised equipment used by the Traffic

Examiners to analyse/interrogate the data downloaded from
the digital tachograph units in the various vehicles was
approved equipment. The digital tachograph units fitted to
the vehicles examined by the Traffic Examiners were all in
calibration. Such data is true and accurate data.
21. No drivers’ digital tachograph cards had been reported as

lost or stolen during the period of the VOSA investigation.
22. On 18th March 2009, the Traffic Examiners met with Mr

Young at Cargen Bridge Business Park, Dumfries. Initially,
they wished to discuss an overloading offence with him.
Thereafter, they told him that they required to check all
records and documentation for the said period of
investigation. He informed them that all such records were
retained at his house.
23. They all travelled to Mr Young's house. The records were

not there. The Traffic Examiners issued Mr Young with a
formal written demand for the documents/records in terms
of Section 99ZA(1)&(2) of the Transport Act 1968. Mr
Young explained that he had been having some difficulty
obtaining tachograph record charts (“charts”) and digital
data from drivers. He informed the Traffic Examiners that
Mr Ian Nisbet was assisting him in the collection and
retention of drivers’ records following on from his father
and transport manager, Mr Sandy Young becoming unwell
in December 2008.
24. Thereafter, the Traffic Examiners travelled to the home

address of Mr Nisbet who informed them that the charts
were at Tachodata Ltd, Coatbridge for analysis failing
which they would be with drivers who had not returned
them or with Kerrs of Dumfries. The Traffic Examiners
left with 21 charts together with copies of calendar entries
detailing work undertaken by vehicles/drivers during
January 2009.
25. The Traffic Examiners returned to Mr Young's house and

left an amended Section 99 Notice requiring all the
documentation detailed therein to be produced to VOSA by
31st March 2009. That date was sufficiently far ahead and
covered the period when all drivers’ records for the period
of investigation should have been with the operator.
26. On 19th March 2009, the Traffic Examiners collected 44

charts and 9 driver card downloads from Tachodata Ltd.
The following day the Traffic Examiners met Mr Nisbet
and explained that documents and records were still
missing.
27. On 2nd April 2009, Mr Young met the Traffic Examiners at

the VOSA office at Bishopbriggs and delivered a box
containing 197 charts. No digital downloads for vehicle
units or driver cards were produced by him.
28. During a telephone conversation on 28th April 2009, Mr

Young confirmed that he had received notification of
VOSA’s request for copies of all drivers’ licences. He
stated that he had written to all drivers. He informed the
Traffic Examiner that he had charts for driver Carson and
was pursuing other drivers for their records. An incomplete
faxed list of drivers was received from Mr Young later that
day.
29. Between that date and 9th October 2009, the Traffic
Examiners made repeated requests by letter, fax and e-mail
inviting Mr Young to contact them and to produce the
outstanding documentation without any response from him.
30. In his letter to VOSA dated 7th October 2009 (received on

9th October 2009) Mr Young (a) explained that his father
had been seriously ill (b) that the Inland Revenue had
petitioned for the liquidation of the operator (c) provided
details of drivers still employed by him and details of
drivers no longer employed (d) made an invitation to be
afforded an opportunity to resolve financial issues and (e)
an indication that he would “keep you up to speed with
what is going on”.
31. On 12th October 2009, Mr Quinn telephoned Mr Young
who advised that “the company may go under” and that he
would try and make drivers available for interview.
32. Despite further written requests to Mr Young, the Traffic

Examiners have received no more information or records
from him.
33. The drivers employed by the operator at the time of the

VOSA investigation handed all their records into the
operator.
34. The operator has failed to produce all the records lawfully
required by VOSA.
Unauthorised use of vehicles
35. On 11th September 2009, vehicle V80 KER was issued with
a prohibition notice. It was displaying an operator licence
disc issued to the operator. It was not specified on the
licence.
36. On 12th September 2009, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator in respect of vehicle LE52 CAM. This vehicle
was displaying an operator licence disc issued to the
operator. It was specified on the licence on 24th March 2007
i.e. 3 months after the operator ceased trading. It was
disposed of bearing reg no KX04 XUZ on 25th October
2009.
37. On 25th October 2009, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator in respect of vehicle FX57 BVL. It was not
specified on the licence at the time the prohibition notice
was issued. It was specified on the licence later that day.
This vehicle is the subject of a lease agreement between Mr
Young t/a Cameron Young Transport and Haydock Finance
Ltd dated 26th June 2008. This vehicle has been in use since
the date of the finance agreement.
38. On 7th November 2009, a technical roadside inspection

report was issued to the operator for vehicle SV08 AYT.
This vehicle was the subject of a lease agreement between
Mr Young t/a Cameron Young Transport and Haydock
Finance Ltd dated 2nd September 2008. This vehicle was
specified on the licence on 12th November 2008. It had
been driven by Mr Young on 22nd and 23rd September
2008. This vehicle has been in use since the date of the
finance agreement.
39. On 20th November 2009, a fixed penalty notice was issued
to the driver of vehicle MH55 XLT namely driver Scott
McClone who was employed by the operator or Mr Young.
A copy of the fixed penalty notice was in the operator’s
records. As at the day before (19th November 2009) Mr
Young ceased to be the registered keeper. Annandale
Transport Co Ltd became the registered keeper of this
vehicle that day. This vehicle continues to be the subject of
a lease agreement between Mr Young t/a Cameron Young
Transport and Haydock Finance Ltd dated 2nd September
2009. This vehicle had been in use since the date of the
finance agreement. It has never been specified on the
licence.
40. On 3rd December 2009, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator in respect of vehicle FX57 BVL. This vehicle
was displaying an operator licence disc issued to the
operator. It was specified on the licence on 25th October
2009. This vehicle continued to be the subject of the said
lease agreement between Mr Young t/a Cameron Young
Transport and Haydock Finance Ltd dated 26th June 2008.
This vehicle had been in use since the date of the finance
agreement.
41. On 10th December 2009, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator in respect of vehicle V4 BLS. The driver was
Jamie Young a brother of Mr Young. This vehicle was
specified on the licence on 16th September 2007. The
operator is the registered keeper.

the operator in respect of said vehicle FX57 BVL for the
same (delayed) defect as found on 25th October 2009. An
overloading offence was also detected. This vehicle was
displaying an operator licence disc issued to the operator. It
was specified on the licence on 25th October 2009. This
vehicle continued to be the subject of the said lease
agreement between Mr Young t/a Cameron Young
Transport and Haydock Finance Ltd dated 26th June 2008.
This vehicle continued to be in use since the date of the
finance agreement.
43. On 14th December 2009, the foregoing prohibition was

removed from vehicle FX57 BVL.

the operator in respect of vehicle SY06 AXJ. It is the
subject of a lease agreement between Mr Young t/a
Cameron Young Transport and Haydock Finance Ltd dated
29th February 2008. This vehicle was specified on the
licence on 12th November 2008. This vehicle has been in
use since the date of the finance agreement.
45. On 22nd December 2009, the prohibition notice previously

issued to vehicle SY06 AXJ on 16th December 2009 was
removed.

the operator in respect of vehicle S80 RCY. The prohibition
was removed on 8th January 2010. This vehicle was
specified on the licence on 16th September 2007. The
registered keeper is the operator.
47. On 5th January 2010, prohibition notices were issued to the

operator in respect of said vehicle V4 BLS. One of the
prohibitions was removed the following day.
48. On 24th January 2010, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator in respect of said vehicle SV08 AYT. It was
still specified on the licence. It continued to be subject to
the said lease agreement between Haydock Finance Ltd and
Mr Young.
49. On 25th January 2010, inter alia a prohibition notice was

issued to the operator in respect of vehicle SJ57 GKG.
From 1st November 2008 to 1st February 2010, the
registered keeper of this vehicle was the operator. As from
1st February 2010 the registered keeper was Scheleck (UK)
Ltd (“Scheleck”). It was specified on the licence on 12th
November 2008. It is still specified on the licence.

the operator in respect of vehicle SY06 AXJ. This vehicle
was specified on the licence on 12th November 2008. It is
still specified on the licence. It is the subject of a lease
agreement between Mr Young t/a Cameron Young
Transport and Haydock Finance Ltd dated 29th February
2008. It has been in use since the said date of the finance
agreement.
51. On 3rd February 2010, a prohibition notice was removed

from the vehicle SV08 AYT. The vehicle was driven by
Mr Jamie Young. It was displaying an operator's licence
disc issued to the operator.
52. On 6th February 2010, two prohibition notices were issued

to the operator in respect of vehicle SA06 UUL. The
registered keeper is the operator. This vehicle has never
been specified on the operator's licence. One prohibition
was removed on 8th February 2010 the other was removed
on 9th February 2010.
53. On13th February 2010, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator in respect of said vehicle SV08 AYT.
54. On 27th February 2010, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator in respect of vehicle SF54 LXZ.
55. On 2nd March 2010, a prohibition was issued to the

operator in respect of said vehicle SV08 AYT.
56. On 12th March 2010, a prohibition notice was issued to the

operator in respect of vehicle SY55 CCU. This vehicle is
the subject of a lease agreement Mr Young t/a Cameron
Young Transport and Haydock Finance Ltd dated 29th
February 2008. It was specified on the licence on 12th
November 2008.

operator in respect of said vehicle V4 BLS. The operator
was still registered as the keeper.
58. The operator had on hire from Scania Truck Rental Vehicle
SF06 FZS since 2nd September 2009 and vehicle SF54 LXZ
since 20th March 2009 to the present time. They have not
been specified on the licence.
59. Between 2nd December 2008 and 19th January 2009, the
operator and/or Mr Young hired vehicle SF07 BYR from
Scania Rentals Ltd. At no time was it specified on the
licence during this period.
Convictions and Fixed Penalties
60. On 8th November 2006, Mr Young was convicted of

tachograph offences at a court in Penrith. He was fined
£450.
61. On 19th March 2008, driver James Laurie was convicted of

making a false record, exceeding 10 hours driving,
exceeding 41/2 hours driving and failing to take sufficient
daily rest. He was fined £1,000.
62. On 14th April 2008, driver Christopher Henderson was

convicted of failing to use a chart (3 charges) and an
overload on the unit. He was fined £200.
63. Fixed Penalties were issued as follows:- 25th October 2009

to driver Bruce Kirkpatrick for exceeding 41/2 hours
driving, 20th November 2009 to driver Scott McClone for
exceeding the overall length of the vehicle, 10th December
2009 to driver Jamie Young for not having paper for the
digital tachograph, on 11th December 2009 to driver Bruce
Kirkpatrick for excess weight, on 5th January 2010 to driver
Martin Smith for missing registration plate, on 5th January
2010 to driver Michael Smith for defective suspension, on
25th January 2010 to driver Ryan McCallie for gross and
axle overweights and on 28th January 2010 to driver Robert
Pollock for failure to produce charts/driver card/print out.
64. These convictions and/or fixed penalties were not reported

to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.
The involvement of Scheleck (UK) Ltd
65. Scheleck c/o Moody International, Plot 31, Estate Road,

No 5 South Humberside Industrial Estate, Grimsby has held
a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence
(“the Scheleck licence”) since 23rd May 2001. 6 vehicles are
authorised for use under this licence.
66. On 7th July 2009, (a) Mr Matthew Penman (Mr Young’s

father in law) was appointed director to Scheleck in place
of Mrs Annette Moody and (b) the correspondence address
for this company was changed to Unit 2a, Abercromby
Industrial Estate, Castle Douglas.
67. On 8th July 2009, Mr Jamie Young, brother of Mr Young,

was nominated the transport manager on the Scheleck
licence in place of Mrs Annette Moody.
68. Intimation of these changes was given to the Office of the

Traffic Commissioner by Mrs Annette Moody by fax using
the fax number of Moody International.
69. Prior to July 2009, N R Evans subcontracted work to the

operator. Since then the same work has been subcontracted
and invoiced to Scheleck. Their main point of contact
continues to be Mr Young.
70. Work previously subcontracted by Fyffes to the operator is

now subcontracted to Scheleck. Their main point of
contact continues to be Mr Young.
71. On 1st February 2010, Scheleck was the registered keeper

of vehicle SJ57 GKG. Previously the registered keeper of
this vehicle was the operator who acquired it on 1st
November 2008. It was previously specified on the licence
on 12th November 2008.
72. At a meeting with the liquidator on 2nd February 2010, Mr

Young informed her that he was employed by Scheleck as
their transport manager.
73. As at 3rd March 2010, vehicles MV08 AYH and SA06

UUL were specified on the Scheleck licence.
74. Vehicle MV08 AYH and trailer C239480 are the subject of
a lease agreement between Mr Young trading as Cameron
Young Transport and Haydock Finance Ltd dated 14th
August 2009. This vehicle has not been specified on the
licence. It was specified on the Scheleck licence on 3rd
March 2010.
75. On 1st April 2010, Scheleck was registered as the keeper of

vehicle SY55 CCU. The address of the registered keeper is
Mr Young’s home address. It is still specified on the
operator’s licence.
76. On 1st April 2010, Scheleck was registered as the keeper of

vehicle SV08 AYT. The address of the registered keeper is
Mr Young’s home address. It is still specified on the
operator’s licence.
77. The registered keeper of vehicle SA06 UUL is the

operator.
78. Vehicle PX57 EHL is the subject of a lease agreement

between Mr Young t/a Cameron Young Transport and
Haydock Finance Ltd dated 1st December 2009. On 12th
January 2010 Scheleck was registered as the keeper of this
vehicle.
79. As the fee for the variation application was not timeously
paid no vehicles have been specified on the Scheleck
licence since 5th May 2010.
Drivers’ Remuneration
80. The majority of the drivers were paid £335 for a 5 day
week plus (a) £66 for 1 extra shift (b) £100 for 5 nights out
(i.e 5 x £20) (c) £45 meal allowance (i.e. 5 x £9) and (d)
£30 expenses.
81. On occasion a driver worked 5 days and was paid for 5

nights when he would have only worked 4 nights. There are
occasions when drivers were paid more meal allowances
than days worked.
82. Where a driver worked 3 or 4 days he received the same

weekly pay.
83. Mr Young supplied the drivers with cash to cover road tolls
in the United Kingdom and abroad.
84. Money for nights out, meal allowance and expenses are not
liable to tax. The drivers were not entitled to these
payments or some of them when they had not worked all
the days they were paid for. By paying the drivers this way
reduced the liability to tax and national insurance
contributions thereby denying the authorities of the
amounts properly due.
85. The drivers did not receive payslips. They were content as
long as their wages were paid into their respective bank
accounts.
Drivers and Journeys
86. On 11th September 2009, vehicle V80 KER was driven by

driver Martin Paterson who was employed by the operator
at the time of the VOSA investigation.
87. On 25th October, 3rd and 11th December 2009, vehicle

FX57 BVL was driven by driver Bruce Kirkpatrick who
was employed by the operator at the time of the VOSA
investigation.
88. On 7th November 2009, vehicle SV08 AYT was driven by

driver Kevin McIntosh who was employed by the operator
at the time of the VOSA investigation.
89. On 20th November 2009, vehicle MH55 XLT was driven

by driver Scott McClone who was employed by the
operator at the time of the VOSA investigation.
90. On 10th December 2009, Mr Jamie Young was driving

vehicle V4 BLS when it was checked by VOSA. It was
displaying a licence disc issued to the operator. It was
specified on the operator's licence.
91. On 16th December 2009, vehicle SY06 AXJ was driven by

driver Thomas Patterson who was employed by the
operator at the time of the VOSA investigation
92. On 22nd December 2009, vehicle SY06 AXJ was driven
by Mr Young.
93. On 24th December 2009 and 8th January 2010, vehicle S80
RCY was driven by driver Scott McClone.
94. On 5th and 6th January 2010, vehicle V4 BLS was driven
by driver Martin Smith.
95. On 28th January 2010, vehicle SY06 AXJ was driven by

driver Robert Pollock who was employed by the operator at
the time of the VOSA investigation
96. On 15th May 2010, Traffic Examiner Robert Carson had an

encounter with vehicle V4 BLS. It was being driven by Mr
Young.
97. On 2nd June 2010, Traffic Examiner Brian Newton had an

encounter with vehicle SVO8 AYT. It was being used by
the operator.
98. On 6th June 2010, Traffic Examiner James Buckley had an

encounter with vehicle MX07 WGA at the VOSA site at
Sawtry. It was displaying an operator’s licence disc issued
to Scheleck. As the licence fee had not been timeously paid
no vehicles had been specified on this licence since 5th May
2010.
99. From Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”)

data the following vehicles have been “sighted” on the
dates stated:-
a. MVO8 AYH on 1st , 7th (x 4), and 13th (x 4) May

2010;
b. S80 LAY on 3rd, 5th 9th, 15th 16th, 23rd , 26th, 27th
May and 6th June 2010;
c. S80 RCY on 4th (x 3), 5th (x 2), 6th, 7th, 12th (x 2),
14th (x 3), and 15th ( x 3) May 2010;
d. FX57 BVL on 11th (x 2) and 12th May 2010;
e. SV08 AYT on 5th, and 12th (x 2) May 2010; and
f. SY06 AXJ on 26th May 2010.
Drivers’ hours and records

100. Drivers employed by the operator and/or Mr Young made
false records using a variety of means to disguise their true
duty and driving times. Had their duty and/or driving times
been faithfully and properly recorded, the records would
have disclosed that the drivers had breached the daily rest
requirements, the daily, weekly and fortnightly driving
limits during the months of December 2008 in January
2009.
101. Inter alia this had been achieved by drivers using digital
drivers’ cards that had been issued in the name of another
driver or drivers. Falsification of drivers records had also
been achieved by winding back the tachograph clock, ghost
drivers, “pulling the fuse” and interference with the
workings of the analogue and digital tachograph recording
equipment.
102. In respect of the period of the VOSA investigation 114

false records have been made by drivers, 14 drivers’ hours
offences have been committed, 45 record offences have
been committed together with 43 instances of aiding and
abetting the commission of some of these offences.
103. An analysis of the digital downloads of the vehicles fitted

with digital tachographs disclosed 28 occasions when the
two hire vehicles SF08 AEC and SF07 BYR were driven
with no drivers’ card inserted. In respect of the other two
vehicles SF56 AYC and SJ57 GKG there were 15
occasions when they were driven without a drivers, card
inserted.
104. Specifically, the two journeys undertaken by driver Bruce

Kirkpatrick in vehicle FX57 BVL on 1st/2nd January 2009
and 6th/7th January 2009 were undertaken by him alone
when he used Mr Young's card to record parts of the
journeys. Driver Bruce Kirkpatrick created false records in
respect of these journeys to disguise his true duty/driving
time. In the 24 hour driving period commencing at 20:07
hours on 6th January 2009 the most daily rest taken by him
in that 24 hour period was 2 hours. Mr Young aided and
abetted driver Bruce Kirkpatrick to commit these offences
and others.
Aiding and abetting the commission of drivers’ hours offences
105. Data down loaded from the unit in vehicle FX57 BVL
discloses that a driver’s card in the name of Mr Young was
inserted into the unit at 1131 hours on 1st January 2009. It
was withdrawn on 2nd January 2010 at 0700 hours.
106. A driver’s card in the name of Bruce Kirkpatrick was

inserted into the same unit from 1024 to 20:15 hours on 2nd
January 2009.
107. Records held by Sainsbury’s at their Crick depot disclose

that vehicle FX57 BVL and driver Bruce Kirkpatrick were
at their premises between 0715 hours and 1026 hours on 2nd
January 2009.
108. A chart dated 2nd January 2009 in the name of Mr Young

discloses a journey in vehicle S80 CSY from Dumfries to
Dumfries commencing at 1655 hours. The recording of this
journey ends with a full scale deflection on the chart at
19:05 hours on the same day.
109. Records from Milklink, The Creamy, Kirkcudbright

disclose that Mr Young, driving vehicle S80 CSY, signed
for a load on 2nd January 2009 at 09:43 hours
110. Data down loaded from the unit in vehicle FX57 BVL for
2nd January 2009 disclose driving recorded on a card in the
name of Mr Young between 11:31 hours on 1st January
2009 and 07:00 hours on 2nd January 2009.
111. Data downloaded from the unit in vehicle FX57 BVL

discloses that a driver’s card in the name of Mr Young was
inserted into the unit at 20:07 hours on 6th January 2009.
112. Vehicle FX57 BVL began a journey from Folkestone to

Calais using the Channel Tunnel at 07:22 hours on 7th
January 2009.
113. The driver’s card in the name of Mr Young was withdrawn

at 07:25 hours on 7th January 2009.
114. A driver’s card in the name of driver Bruce Kirkpatrick

was inserted into the same unit at 08:21 hours on 7th
January 2009. It was withdrawn at 17:39 hours on 9th
January 2009.
115. P & O Ferries records disclose that driver Bruce

Kirkpatrick was the driver of vehicle FX57 BVL on a ferry
crossing from Calais to Dover commencing at 19:45 hours
on 7th January 2009.
116. On 1st December 2008, a driver's card in the name of Mr

Sandy Young was inserted into the unit of vehicle SF07
BYR at 20:40 hours. It was withdrawn at 20:46 hours. It
was inserted again at 20:47 hours and withdrawn at 00:51
hours on 2nd December 2008. It was withdrawn at 06:22
hours on 2nd December 2008. There was no driver's card in
the unit between 07:55 hours on 08:04 hours on 2nd
December 2008 when the vehicle was driven. Vehicle SF07
BYR with Mr Sandy Young's card in the unit sailed from
Portsmouth to Oustreiham at 08:30 hours on 2nd December
2008.
117. Mr Sandy Young failed to make a true record of his

driving/duty time associated with his journey on
1st/2ndDecember 2008. He did not take proper breaks or
rest periods. He has knowingly made a false record.
118. Mr Sandy Young was involved in a road traffic incident on

said 1st December 2008. On 15th April 2009, he was
convicted at Hamilton Sheriff Court of driving without due
care and attention and for failing to stop after an accident.
He was fined £100 in respect of each charge. 8 Penalty
points were ordered to be endorsed on his driving licence.
There is no record of these convictions being reported to
the Traffic Commissioner.
Prohibition Notices and Fixed Penalties
119. On 12th September 2009, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator for the driver of vehicle LE52 CAM namely
driver Terence Stewart failing to produce charts and/or
print out.
120. On 25th October 2009, a prohibition notice was issued to

the operator for the driver of vehicle FX57 BVL namely
driver Bruce Kirkpatrick exceeding 4.5hours driving and/or
failing to use a chart or driver card.
121. On 3rd December 2009, a prohibition notice was issued to

driver Bruce Kirkpatrick using the vehicle with a defective
exhaust system.

the operator for the driver of vehicle V4 BLS namely driver
Jamie Young failing to ensure the digital tachograph was
supplied with paper.

driver Bruce Kirkpatrick driving the vehicle when it was
overloaded and with an insecure exhaust.

the operator for the driver of vehicle SY06 AXJ namely
driver Thomas Patterson driving the vehicle when a seat
belt was inoperative and a wing was badly holed.

the operator for the driver of vehicle S80 RCY namely
driver Scott McClone using the vehicle with a tachograph
not sealed in accordance with the regulalations.
126. On 5th January 2010, a prohibition notice was issued to the

operator for the driver of vehicle V4 BLS namely driver
Martin Smith for towing a trailer with a deflated suspension
unit.

operator for the driver of vehicle SV08 AYT namely driver
Graeme Cowan using the vehicle when the dipped
headlights were inoperative.

the operator for driver Ryan McCallie driving vehicle SJ57
GKG whilst overloaded.

operator for the driver of vehicle SY06 AXJ namely driver
Robert Pollock failing to produce charts and/or printouts.
130. On 6th February 2010, prohibition notices were issued to

the operator for the driver of vehicle SA06 UUL namely
driver William Nicol using the vehicle when (a) the
tachograph was not lawfully fitted and (b) a brake disc was
fractured.

the operator for the driver of vehicle SV08 AYT namely
driver Jon Linton failing to produce documents.

the operator for the driver of vehicle SF54 LXZ namely
driver Jon Linton failing to make a record.
133. On 2nd March 2010, a prohibition notice was issued to the

driver of vehicle SV08 AYT namely driver Scott McClone
failing to ensure that the digital tachograph was supplied
with paper.
operator for the driver of vehicle SY55 CCU namely driver
Graeme Cowan making a false record.

operator for the driver of vehicle V4 BLS namely driver
James Wright failing to ensure proper use of a driver’s card.
136. On 12th May 2010, a prohibition notice was issued to the

operator for driver Alan Forlow using a trailer with an
excessively worn brake pad (there is no record of the
identity of the towing unit).
Failure to keep proper Records
137. The drivers produced all their records to the operator.
138. The operator failed to keep and retain proper records and to
produce all the records lawfully required by the Traffic
Examiners. From the charts examined by them there is
missing mileage in respect of various of the vehicles used
by the operator as follows:- vehicle AY06 AEW – 10,846
kms, vehicle LE52 CAM – 15,066 kms, vehicle S80 LAY –
23,866 kms, vehicle SV53 JVX -11,032 kms, vehicle SF04
TVL 5,747 kms, vehicle SY55 CCU – 8,844 kms, vehicle
S80 CSY – 15,252 kms, and vehicle S80 RCY – 12,4641
kms. Vehicle KX06 AWH - no charts produced although
the operator used the vehicle in December 2009 and
January 2010.
Failure to notify additional/alternative operating centre
139. On or about 31st August 2008, the operator terminated its

lease with DHL in respect of the premises at Irongray
Road, Dumfries and relocated to premises at Cargen
Bridge Business Park, Dumfries. The operator did not
apply to the Traffic Commissioner for these alternative
premises to be specified on the licence as an operating
centre.
FINDINGS IN FACT AND LAW
xlviii) The case for VOSA is established.

xlix) Mr Young has been deliberately obstructive throughout the
VOSA investigation.
l) He has misrepresented the true trading position of the operator

to the liquidator.
li) He gave untrue information to the liquidator when he informed

the meeting of creditors that the leased vehicles had been returned
to the finance companies.
lii) He failed to inform the Traffic Commissioner of (a) the

cessation of the business of the operator in July 2009 and (b) the
liquidation of the operator in September 2009.
liii) Any use made of vehicles by the operator since July 2009 has
been unauthorised use.
liv) He has continued to operate a haulage business without the

authority of an operator’s licence, with vehicles displaying
operator licence discs issued under the licence.
lv) The licence discs declared “lost” by the liquidator are not lost.
Mr Young has continued to use them on the vehicles he continues
to operate.
lvi) The operator has failed to keep proper records.
lvii) Had the operator kept and produced all records more drivers’
hours offences would have been discovered by the Traffic
Examiners.
lviii) The operator is no longer of good repute.
lix) Mr Sandy Young has been medically indisposed since at least

December 2008. He has been able to exercise continuous and
effective control over the business as the nominated transport
manager. The operator is not professionally competent.
lx) The operator ceased to be of appropriate financial standing on

from July 2009.
CONSIDERATIONS, DISCUSSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
lxi) As Mr Young in his capacity as sole director of the operator did

not attend the Public Inquiry and in the absence of competing
evidence I hold that the case as presented by VOSA is
established.
lxii) The peculiarity in this case is that during the investigation of
this case the operator was formally liquidated.
lxiii) The Act is written in such a way that when the holder of an
operator’s licence, in this case a private limited company, goes
into liquidation that event in itself does not terminate the licence.
When the relevant regulations are invoked the traffic
commissioner is vested with discretion as to whether or not to
permit the person carrying on the trade or business of the operator
is to be treated for the purposes of the Act as if he were the holder
of the operator's licence. The relevant regulations have not been
invoked in this case.
lxiv) Section 26(1)(g) of the Act also vests the traffic commissioner
with discretion to revoke, suspend or curtail the licence where the
licence holder, again in this case a private limited company, has
gone into liquidation other than voluntary liquidation for the
purpose of reconstruction. Thus, far that discretion has not been
exercised in this case. That said there is no reference to this
Section in the call up letter to the operator dated 4th May 2010.
lxv) No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the operator

continues to be of appropriate financial standing. No such
evidence can be properly produced as the operator was formerly
liquidated in September 2009. The licence is therefore exposed
and subject to revocation in terms of Section 27(1)(b) of the Act.
lxvi) There are, however, other issues associated with good repute
and professional competence which I require to consider.
lxvii) To all intents and purposes the operator is Mr Young. I agree

with Mr Fisher's comment that Mr Young is “the man at the top”.
lxviii) I regard Mr Young as a person who has had many years of

experience in the haulage industry, both as a driver and as the
holder of an operator's licence through the medium of “his”
private limited company.
lxix) It seems that the operator was incorporated and became the
holder of the licence following on from the apparent failure, for
whatever reason, of the business previously conducted by his
father Mr Sandy Young. This may be a situation where there was
a seamless change of ownership of the business which continued
to provide the same customers with the same service.
lxx) How Mr Young arranges/administers his business is entirely a

matter for him. There are, however, constraints on a director of a
private limited company. There are further constraints associated
with running the transport side of the business associated with the
undertakings that were given at the time of application for the
licence. The director of a private limited company is in a
fiduciary position. The holder of a goods vehicle operator’s
licence is in a relationship of trust with the Traffic Commissioner
to ensure that all the undertakings given at the time of application
for the licence are fulfilled and that there are proper arrangements
in place to ensure fulfilment of those undertakings.
lxxi) I therefore note with interest and concern that Mr Young

attributes “the red tape surrounding the tachograph and drivers’
hours rules” as one of the reasons for the financial failure of the
business. In light of my determination that the VOSA case is
established, this comment is entirely misplaced. Mr Young has
deliberately ignored the drivers’ hours’ rules and regulations. By
ignoring them he has not been constrained by them. He has had
an unfair advantage over commercial competitors who pay due
obedience to the operator licensing regime. This comment does,
however, give an insight into Mr Young’s attitude to these all-
important rules and to the whole concept of operator licensing. It
is an attitude of complete and utter disregard and even contempt
for operator licensing.
lxxii) Mr Young was properly and lawfully required to attend the

Public Inquiry. He instructed Mr Allan to inform me that he was
“too stressed”. He did not feel able to attend. There was no
medical vouching produced that might otherwise have
substantiated his reason for not attending. I am in no doubt that
he chose not to attend and that he had absolutely no intention of
attending.
lxxiii) I was interested in the reaction of the drivers as Mr Allan was

explaining the reasons for Mr Young’s non attendance. Clearly,
they were not impressed with his absence nor were they
surprised. When Mr Allan informed me Mr Young was no longer
operating lorries there was an air of disbelief at what he was
saying. That air of disbelief carried an element of hostility with it.
lxxiv) I suspended Mr Young's LGV licence on the basis that, if he

was too stressed to attend the Public Inquiry and his driver’s
conduct hearing, he was not fit to be driving large goods vehicles.
Mr Allan assured me that Mr Young's licence would be delivered
to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within 48 hours. To
date he has failed to deliver his licence for endorsement.
lxxv) The situation as I hold it to be is that the VOSA investigation

which focused on the period of 1st December 2008 to 25th January
2009 revealed a number of significant departures from what is
expected of a responsible and compliant operator.
lxxvi) First and foremost, Mr Young failed to make proper

arrangements that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are
observed, proper records are kept and that these are made
available on request. This is one of the undertakings he gave
when he signed the application for the licence on behalf of the
operator on 29th August 2006. He was reminded of his
obligation in this regard when he met Traffic Examiners in May
and November 2008 and in January 2009. At each meeting he
gave assurances that proper systems would be put in place. The
VOSA investigation disclosed that notwithstanding the
undertaking he gave and his subsequent assurances he did not
have proper systems in place in the said period of 1st December
2008 to 25th January 2009. The situation was compounded by his
failure to comply with all the reasonable and lawful requests
made time and again of him by Mr Quinn and Mrs Hill. Their
initial meeting with him got off to a sinister start when he took
them to his house after he had told him that the records would be
there. It was quite clear that there were no records there and Mr
Young must have known that.
lxxvii) I am in no doubt that Mr Quinn is correct in his belief that the

records delivered to him by Mr Young on 2nd April 2009 were a
selection of records chosen by Mr Young. I am also in no doubt
that the drivers had returned all their records to Mr Young and he
was therefore in a position to deliver many more records than he
chose so to do to the Traffic Examiners. Had all the records been
delivered some of the missing mileage might have been
accounted for but again I agree with Mr Quinn that in all
probability many more drivers’ hours offences would have been
detected.
lxxviii) With regard to the drivers’ hours offences I have not made
detailed findings in fact. Having carefully considered the
evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that in the
period of the VOSA investigation 114 false records had been
created, 14 drivers hours offences committed, 45 record offences
together with 43 instances of aiding and abetting the commission
of such offences. This is a very worrying situation. Whilst there
is evidence that the driver's records were sent for analysis, there is
no evidence of any analysis being carried out let alone any
alleged infringements being brought to the attention of the drivers
concerned. This is not surprising in light of the evidence Mr
Fisher led from the Traffic Examiners in respect of Mr Young
and Mr Sandy Young as detailed in my findings in fact. That
evidence clearly demonstrates that Mr Young was actively
involved in requiring drivers to undertake journeys which could
not be completed within the time constraints of the drivers’ hours
rules and regulations. He arranged for drivers to use his and
other drivers’ cards in an attempt to generate records which might
tend to suggest double manned journeys when in reality only a
single driver was involved. Other methods of creating false
records were used.
lxxix) The significant number of prohibition notices issued to drivers
for failing to produce driving records and/or failing to have
sufficient paper for the digital tachograph is another feature of an
operator and drivers knowingly involved in a culture of non-
compliance with the drivers’ hours rules and regulations.
lxxx) The bottom line in all of this is that Mr Young promoted the
very real risk of drivers driving whilst tired thereby
compromising road safety for other road users. There is the
extreme and wholly unacceptable situation of driver Bruce
Kirkpatrick having only two hours rest in a 24 hour driving
period. This was a situation that was without precedent for Mr
Quinn. He was very concerned about it. This all impacts on the
good repute of the operator, a topic I return to later on.
lxxxi) There are further instances of Mr Young failing to fulfil the

undertakings he gave on behalf of the operator at the time the
licence was applied for. Inter alia these include (a) the failure to
ensure that vehicles and trailers were not overloaded (b) the
unauthorised use of Cargen Bridge Business Park as an operating
centre (c) the failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner of
convictions and (d) the failure to ensure that the Traffic
Commissioner was notified within 28 days of the change in the
financial status of the operator with specific reference to the
cessation of the business and liquidation of the operator.
lxxxii) It is clear that from at least July 2009 the operator was not of
appropriate Financial Standing. From that moment in time the
licence was exposed to revocation. Mr Young knew that. Instead
of informing the Traffic Commissioner he put in place
arrangements for the business to continue. That business was to
continue to provide a transport service to existing customers of
the operator. An operator's licence was required. Instead of
coming clean with the Traffic Commissioner, Mr Young
continued to use vehicles under the guise of the licence. He had
the audacity to renew the licence online on 30th October 2009
approximately 7 weeks after a provisional liquidator had been
appointed to the operator. Since the cessation of the business and
the liquidation of the operator Mr Young has continued to use
vehicles displaying licence discs issued under the authority of the
licence. This is evidenced by the many encounters such vehicles
have had with VOSA as detailed in my findings in fact. I believe
that these vehicles continue to operate notwithstanding the
unequivocal statement to the contrary given by Mr Allan at the
beginning of the Public Inquiry.
lxxxiii) It appears that Mr Young has been less than candid with the
liquidator. At the meeting of the creditors of the operator held on
11th November 2009 inter alia he informed the meeting that all
staff were paid off in July 2009. This is not a true statement as a
number of drivers, including drivers Bruce Kirkpatrick, Kevin
McIntosh, Scott McClone, Thomas Paterson, Robert Pollock,
Martin Smith and Jamie Young, who were employed by the
operator at the time of the VOSA investigation, were still driving
vehicles associated with the operator subsequent to the
liquidation as evidenced from encounters with VOSA which
invariably resulted in prohibition notices being issued in the name
of the operator. He also advised that all the vehicles which had
been leased in his name had been returned to the finance
companies. Again, this is not true, as the vehicles continued to be
used after the liquidation as evidenced from further encounters
with VOSA. Haydock Finance Ltd confirmed to the Traffic
Examiners that that the only vehicle that had been leased from
them and no longer in the possession of Mr Young was vehicle
MH55 XLT. The agreements in respect of all other leased
vehicles are still current. In her application for the surrender of
the operator's licence dated 9th April 2010, the liquidator
declared that the licence discs for the vehicles detailed in the
application form had been lost. This information could only have
been provided by Mr Young. I do not accept that the licence
discs have been lost. Since the said application form was
submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner there have
been sightings/encounters by or with VOSA of some of the
vehicles detailed in that form namely vehicles S80 LAY, S80
RCY, FX57 BVL, SV08 AYT and SY06 AXJ. Mr Young's
apparent lack of candour with the liquidator might be a matter the
liquidator may care to investigate.
lxxxiv) It is not obvious to me why the vehicles were leased by Mr

Young and not the operator. I note with interest that in each lease
agreement he designs himself trading as Cameron Young
Transport not the limited company and not as an individual.
Notwithstanding that the leased vehicles had been capitalised on
the operator's balance sheet, he took on a personal financial
responsibility for maintaining payment of the contracted for lease
payments. Accordingly, with the cessation of the business Mr
Young had a vested interest in continuing the business as a source
of income to pay the instalments due under the leases. He also
took on new leases well after the liquidation – vehicle PX57 EHL
is an example.
lxxxv) There are, however, other issues associated with the leases. As
detailed in my findings in fact almost without exception Mr
Young entered into a lease for a vehicle and it was sometime
thereafter before the vehicle was specified on the licence. I do not
accept that Mr Young would enter into a lease with a contracted
for financial commitment and not immediately make use of the
leased vehicle. He/the operator has made unauthorised use of
such vehicles. Invariably, such a vehicle was specified on the
licence after an encounter with VOSA. I do not see the point in
doing this as the use continued to be unauthorised, as the business
of the operator had ceased months previously and the operator
was in liquidation.
lxxxvi) Vehicles hired by the operator were not specified on the licence
within the 28 day period of grace. The digital tachograph units in
hired vehicles were never “locked” with the operator’s card so
that any data downloaded would not disclose the use made of the
vehicle by the operator.
lxxxvii) Invariably, it is a requirement of any lease or rental agreement

involving a large goods vehicle that the vehicle is used under the
authority of an operator’s licence. If such use is unauthorised
there may be issues arising associated with insurance.
lxxxviii) Then there is the involvement of Scheleck. Following on from

the cessation of the business of the operator in July 2009 this
company picked up or took over two substantial contracts that
had previously been between the operator and NR Evans and
Fyffes respectively. So far as NR Evans and Fyffes were
concerned there was no difference in the trading pattern. The only
difference was that Scheleck and not the operator were providing
transportation services. Mr Young continued to be the point of
contact. The telephone and fax numbers remained the same.
Vehicles were registered in the name Scheleck at Mr Young’s
home address. When Mr Young met the liquidator on 2nd
February 2010 he informed her that he was now employed with
Scheleck as transport manager. Scheleck is the holder of an
operator's licence. Two vehicles were specified on the licence as
at 3rd March 2010. As the fee for a variation application was not
paid no vehicles have been specified on the licence since 5th May
2010. I am in no doubt that Mr Young has continued the business
of the operator using Scheleck as the trading entity and that he
has used vehicles under his control in the furtherance of the
business including vehicles associated with the operator.
lxxxix) I have said little about professional competence. There is little

to be said about professional competence. The transport manager
Mr Sandy Young has not featured in the VOSA investigation.
This is explained by a very significant deterioration in his health,
which I am sorry to note. However Mr Young took no steps to
address the situation and in particular he took no steps to find a
replacement for his ailing father. From at least December 2008,
the operator has not had an appropriately qualified person who
has had continuous and effective responsibility for the
management of the transport operations of the operator. The
licence also falls to be revoked, as it is no longer professionally
competent.
xc) Finally, there is the all-important issue of good repute. In
considering whether the operator is of good repute I require to
have regard to all the material evidence, with particular reference
to relevant convictions and any other information in my
possession as to the previous conduct of the companies officers
servants or agents or any of its directors in whatever capacity if
that conduct appears to relate to the operator's fitness to hold a
licence. In my view, the conduct of in particular Mr Young and
the drivers impacts adversely on the good repute of the operator.
xci) If the only issue I required to consider in this case was good
repute, prior to determining whether the licence should be
revoked, I would require to consider how likely it was that this
operator would operate in compliance with the operator's
licensing regime in the future. I am in no doubt that this operator
is highly unlikely to comply with the operator’s licensing regime.
This operator and/or Mr Young cannot be trusted. If the operator
was not already out of business it would deserve to be as a
consequence of the acting’s of Mr Young which make the loss of
the licence inevitable. The operator is no longer of good repute.
xcii) The public interest and other road users require protection in the
future from Mr Young and the wholly irresponsible and
deliberate actings he has indulged in as hereinbefore discussed.
He must be disqualified from any future involvement in any
capacity in operator licensing.
xciii) The only saving grace in this wholly unacceptable situation is

that I did not have a report from VOSA raising concerns
regarding the maintenance of the vehicles.
DECISION
1. As the operator is no longer of good repute, of appropriate financial

standing or professionally competent in terms of Section 27(1) of the Act I
hereby revoke the Standard International Goods Vehicles Operator’s
Licence OM 1063486 held by Cameron Young Transport Ltd with
immediate effect.
2. In terms of Section 28(1) of the Act I disqualify Cameron Young Transport

Ltd from holding or obtaining an operator's licence in any Traffic Area
indefinitely.
3. In terms of Section 28 of the Act I disqualify Mr Cameron John Young (dob

18:06:74) from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in any capacity
and in any Traffic Area indefinitely.
4. In accordance with Article 8(2) of EEC Council Regulation 881 of 1992 I
withdraw the operator’s Community Authorisation Certificates.
……………………………………………………………….
Richard Hamilton McFarlane
Deputy Commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area
30th July 2010
Footnote:-
In all the time I have been privileged to serve as the Deputy Traffic
Commissioner in the Scottish Traffic Area (14 years) I cannot recall a case as
bad as this.
As a direct consequence of Mr Young failing to cooperate with the reasonable

and lawful requests made of him by the Traffic Examiners they have had to make
extensive enquiries involving a very considerable amount of time and travel.
The end product of their endeavours has been the compilation of very extensive
reports. I have never had so many files of papers and documents to consider.
I wish to record my heartfelt gratitude to Mr John Quinn and Mrs Evelyn Hill for
their diligence and perseverance in this case. They have taken a very
considerable amount of time and trouble to put together comprehensive and
detailed reports which they have clearly checked and cross checked. The reports
as presented to me were in a very user-friendly layout. During the Public
Inquiry, both Mr Quinn and Mrs Hill spoke to their reports in a very fair and
measured manner. It was clear to me that in preparing their reports if there was
any doubt with regard to the factual material they were dealing with the benefit
of the doubt was given to the operator and/or drivers. They have been excellent
ambassadors for VOSA in this case.

Cameron Young - Traffic Commissioner's Decision

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cameron Young - Traffic Commissioner's Decision

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA

UNDER THE GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995

RICHARD HAMILTON McFARLANE

CAMERON YOUNG TRANSPORT LIMITED

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

i) At Edinburgh on 9th and 10th June 2010 I held a Public Inquiry to

ii) In attendance at the Public Inquiry was Mr Michael S Allan,

iii) Mr Allan explained that Mr Young was “stressed” and considered

v) Mr Allan was also instructed to represent the interests of drivers,

viii) The Public Inquiry involved Mr Fisher leading evidence from Mr

xi) In recent times, I have had concerns and reservations about

xii) Similarly, if concerns arise with regard to the fitness of a licence

xiii) In the case of HJ Oakes Ltd 25/2002 the Transport Tribunal

“A traffic commissioner to whom a reference has been

xv) Accordingly, at a driver’s conduct hearing the licence holder is

xviii) The ordering of a Public Inquiry is governed by Section 35(1) and

5-(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Schedule, the

(2) Subject to subparagraph (5), a person entitled to

(3) The giving of evidence, the calling of witnesses, the

xix) Whilst there is provision in the Regulations for the conjoining of

xx) In cases involving Sections 26 and 27 of the Act it is the

THE CASE FOR VOSA

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF VOSA BY Mr FISHER

xxvii) On 2nd April 2009, as agreed, Mr Young attended at the Goods

xxix) Thereafter, Traffic Examiners tried to obtain the records from Mr

xxxiii) Mr Young had failed to appear at the Public Inquiry without

xxxvi) On the topic of missing mileage the Traffic Examiners concluded

xxxvii) There was no evidence of Mr Young taking disciplinary action

xl) There was evidence of Mr Young acquiring vehicles after the

xliii) Mr Fisher questioned what work had been undertaken by the

xliv) In terms of repute, Mr Fisher submitted that this was an operator

xlv) He considered that the strongest action against the company

xlvi) In conclusion, Mr Fisher submitted that the industry must be sent a

xlvii) Having resumed consideration of the Public Inquiry Brief

1. Cameron Young Transport Ltd (“the operator”) a company

2. The sole director of the operator is Mr Cameron John

3. The nominated Transport Manager on the licence is Mr

5. During the currency of the licence 30 vehicles have been

Cessation of trading /liquidation

7. In July 2009 the operator ceased trading.

8. On 9th September 2009, a petition on behalf of H M

9. At the meeting of creditors of the operator held on 11th

10. In her letter to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner,

Prelude to the VOSA investigation

11. In February and March 2008, Police Officers of Dumfries

12. On 29th May 2008, Traffic Examiner Mr James Sweetin

13. On 5th November 2008, at a spot check of vehicle SY55

14. On 20th January 2009, Mr Sweetin and Traffic Examiner

15. On 24th January 2009, Mr Sweetin and Alasdhair

The VOSA investigation

16. The investigation was initiated as a consequence of the

17. VOSA decided to carry out a check on all drivers

18. At the time of the investigation the operator had 15

20. The computerised equipment used by the Traffic

21. No drivers’ digital tachograph cards had been reported as

22. On 18th March 2009, the Traffic Examiners met with Mr

23. They all travelled to Mr Young's house. The records were

24. Thereafter, the Traffic Examiners travelled to the home

25. The Traffic Examiners returned to Mr Young's house and

26. On 19th March 2009, the Traffic Examiners collected 44

27. On 2nd April 2009, Mr Young met the Traffic Examiners at

28. During a telephone conversation on 28th April 2009, Mr

30. In his letter to VOSA dated 7th October 2009 (received on