Greeth Ltd: Traffic Commissioner Decision and Lessons for HGV Operators
A Traffic Commissioner decision involving Greeth Ltd (OC2040761) highlights how failures involving vehicle authorisations, operating centres, drivers' hours monitoring and management oversight can put an Operator Licence at risk.
The Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England, David Mullan, directed the revocation of Greeth Ltd's Operator Licence following a public inquiry in June 2026.
However, the official decision is subsequently marked “Stay granted”. This is an important distinction: the revocation was directed, but its implementation was stayed.
The case offers practical lessons for haulage operators, particularly smaller businesses where responsibility for compliance may be shared between directors, Transport Managers, drivers and external service providers.
What happened in the Greeth Ltd case?
Greeth Ltd obtained its Operator Licence in March 2021, with authorisation for four vehicles and four trailers.
In May 2025, the company applied to increase its authorisation to six vehicles and six trailers.
While that application was being considered, DVSA stopped one of the company's vehicles on 5 June 2025. The vehicle was not specified on an Operator Licence, and Greeth Ltd had already reached its authorised vehicle limit.
Further investigations identified concerns involving additional vehicles, the use of an unauthorised operating centre and weaknesses in the company's compliance arrangements.
A DVSA Traffic Examiner visit in November 2025 also identified shortcomings in driver monitoring, training, licence checks and drivers' hours management.
The public inquiry began on 9 June 2026 and continued on 24 June 2026 following an adjournment.
The Commissioner's written decision was dated 13 August 2026 and published on GOV.UK on 24 September 2026.
What were the main compliance failures?
1. Exceeding vehicle authorisation
Greeth Ltd was authorised to operate four vehicles.
However, evidence established that the company had operated five vehicles concurrently, exceeding its authorised fleet size.
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) evidence demonstrated repeated concurrent use of five vehicles between 23 June and 2 July 2025.
The investigation also identified 26 occasions when vehicles were operated more than 28 days after coming into the operator's lawful possession without being specified on the licence.
These were two distinct issues: exceeding the authorised vehicle limit and failing to specify vehicles within the required period.
The lesson for operators: applying to increase vehicle authorisation does not give permission to operate additional vehicles before the variation is granted.
The 28-day provision for specifying vehicles does not allow an operator to exceed its authorised fleet size.
Operators planning to expand should check their available vehicle margin and arrange any necessary Operator Licence variation before putting additional vehicles into service.
2. Operating from an unauthorised operating centre
Greeth Ltd originally operated from an authorised site in Liverpool.
However, the company relocated vehicles to premises in Widnes in June 2025 after the original site became unavailable.
The Widnes premises had not been authorised as an operating centre when the vehicles were moved.
The Commissioner found that Greeth Ltd knowingly operated from the unauthorised site between June 2025 and 9 June 2026, a period of approximately 12 months.
The company also continued to declare the Liverpool address as its operating centre, despite vehicles normally being kept in Widnes.
An operating centre is not simply an address recorded on an application. It forms part of the operator's licensing arrangements, and changes must be dealt with properly.
The lesson for operators: moving vehicles to different premises can require a licence variation. Submitting an application does not automatically authorise the new location.
If your business is changing operating centres, our guide [When Does an Operator Need to Vary Their Licence?] explains why changes should be planned before they take effect.
3. Ineffective drivers' hours monitoring
Another significant finding concerned the company's management of drivers' hours and tachograph infringements.
DVSA identified a serious infringement on 18 February 2026 involving a driver who drove for five hours and 59 minutes without taking a qualifying break.
However, the infringement report was not produced until 24 March 2026, and the documented discussion with the driver did not take place until May.
The Commissioner concluded that the company lacked an effective process for identifying, investigating and addressing drivers' hours infringements promptly.
Greeth Ltd used tachograph analysis software, but the existence of software and reports did not demonstrate effective management.
A proper monitoring process should establish:
What infringement occurred and which driver was involved.
Whether the circumstances require investigation.
What explanation the driver provided.
Whether corrective action is necessary.
Whether subsequent monitoring shows improvement.
The lesson for operators: downloading tachograph data is only the beginning. Reports must be reviewed, infringements investigated and corrective action recorded.
Our article [What Does a Transport Manager Need to Do Every Month?] explains how this fits into routine transport compliance management.
4. Insufficient management oversight
A recurring issue throughout the decision was the extent to which Greeth Ltd relied on others to manage its transport activities.
Journey planning and elements of driver training and working time monitoring were handled through Amazon systems, while Tachomaster was used for tachograph analysis.
The Commissioner did not find that using third-party systems was inherently wrong.
The problem was the operator's lack of effective oversight.
The company had not demonstrated sufficient control over driver training, infringement investigations and other important compliance activities.
This distinction is particularly relevant to smaller operators that outsource administrative or specialist functions.
External providers can perform valuable tasks, but the operator remains responsible for ensuring its compliance arrangements are effective.
The lesson for operators: outsourcing compliance administration does not remove responsibility for compliance.
The business must know what is being checked, who is responsible and what happens when problems are identified.
What did the Commissioner find about the Transport Managers?
The decision considered the responsibilities of two Transport Managers, and the findings were different.
Former Transport Manager Andrej Malychin
The Commissioner found that Mr Malychin had failed to exercise sufficient oversight.
He had been unaware of the unauthorised vehicle use, the subsequent DVSA investigation and the relocation to an unauthorised operating centre.
However, the Commissioner also accepted that the company director had not kept him informed of important developments.
There was no finding that Mr Malychin had deliberately participated in or concealed the failings.
His good repute was retained but tarnished, and he received a warning about his future conduct.
Newly nominated Transport Manager Nikiforos Nikolaidis
Mr Nikolaidis was nominated in February 2026, after many of the compliance failures had occurred.
The Commissioner made no adverse finding against him.
However, concerns were expressed about his practical experience and the process used to investigate drivers' hours infringements.
The wider lesson is that a Transport Manager needs sufficient involvement, information and authority to exercise effective and continuous management.
A Transport Manager cannot properly oversee an operation if important information is withheld. Equally, the role requires active engagement rather than simply being named on the licence.
Our guides [What Does an External Transport Manager Actually Do?] and [What Are the Duties and Responsibilities of a Transport Manager?] explore these responsibilities in more detail.
What did the Traffic Commissioner decide?
The Commissioner concluded that Greeth Ltd had committed serious and persistent compliance failures.
These included exceeding vehicle authorisation, operating from an unauthorised operating centre, inadequate drivers' hours systems and insufficient management control.
The Commissioner also concluded that Greeth Ltd and its sole director, Konstantinos Theologidis, had lost their good repute for operator licensing purposes.
The decision directed that the Operator Licence be revoked with effect from 23:45 on 9 September 2026. The company's application to increase vehicle authorisation was refused.
Importantly, the official GOV.UK decision is marked “Stay granted”.
This means the implementation of the revocation was stayed. The published decision does not establish the final outcome of that stay or any subsequent appeal, so it would be incorrect to state without qualification that the licence ceased on 9 September 2026.
The Commissioner retained but tarnished former Transport Manager Mr Malychin's good repute and issued a warning. No adverse finding was made against Mr Nikolaidis.
The Commissioner also made no adverse finding regarding allegations that Greeth Ltd had failed to comply with DVSA information requests.
The full findings can be read in the official Traffic Commissioner decision for Greeth Ltd (OC2040761).
What can other HGV operators learn?
The Greeth Ltd case highlights several areas that operators should review regularly.
Vehicle authorisations: Check that the number of vehicles being operated remains within the authorised limit and that vehicles are correctly specified.
Operating centres: Ensure vehicles are normally kept at authorised premises and that changes are addressed through the appropriate licensing process.
Drivers' hours: Download and analyse tachograph data, investigate infringements promptly and retain evidence of corrective action.
Transport Manager oversight: Make sure the Transport Manager knows about significant operational changes, enforcement activity and compliance concerns.
Third-party services: Understand which compliance tasks are outsourced and ensure that the business retains effective oversight.
These checks should form part of an ongoing compliance management process rather than being addressed only when DVSA raises concerns.
For a wider review of potential weaknesses, see [Common Operator Licence Compliance Failures] and [What Happens During a Transport Compliance Audit?].
Could your operation demonstrate effective compliance?
The central lesson from the Greeth Ltd decision is that compliance requires more than software, paperwork and named individuals.
Operators need systems that identify problems, management arrangements that ensure action is taken, and records demonstrating that those arrangements work.
Road Haulage Compliance provides independent Transport Compliance Audits to help HGV operators assess their systems, identify weaknesses and understand where improvements may be required.
We also support operators with Operator Licence applications and variations, alongside External Transport Manager services.
If you are unsure whether your current compliance arrangements would stand up to scrutiny, contact Road Haulage Compliance to discuss an independent Transport Compliance Audit.
Official source: Traffic Commissioner decision for Greeth Ltd (OC2040761). Written decision dated 13 August 2026, published 24 September 2026. GOV.UK records that a stay has been granted.
Comments