GT Transport Services: Operator Licences Revoked Following Compliance Failures
Having qualified Transport Managers and compliance software in place does not automatically mean a haulage operation is being managed effectively.
A recent Traffic Commissioner decision involving GT Transport Services Limited demonstrates the consequences when weaknesses in drivers' hours monitoring, vehicle maintenance and management oversight are repeatedly identified but not adequately addressed.
Following a public inquiry on 28 September 2026, two of the company's three Standard National Operator Licences were revoked. Its remaining licence was suspended for seven days and subsequently subjected to a temporary reduction in vehicle authorisation.
The case provides important lessons for operators managing multiple licences, operating centres and Transport Managers.
Background: GT Transport Services Limited
GT Transport Services Limited held three Standard National goods vehicle Operator Licences:
OK2061546: Granted in January 2023, originally authorising two vehicles and two trailers.
OH2077358: Granted in December 2024, authorising three vehicles and three trailers.
OF2077360: Granted in December 2024, authorising one vehicle and one trailer.
The company's director was Hardeep Singh Tattla. The Transport Managers involved were Sunil Dhall, nominated on the OK licence until September 2026, and Andrew Sayer, nominated on the OH and OF licences.
DVSA conducted two desk-based assessments during 2025.
The first, in July, identified eight unsatisfactory compliance areas. A second assessment in November identified seven unsatisfactory areas, many involving the same weaknesses.
Following both assessments, the operator and Transport Managers promised improvements.
However, a further DVSA investigation in March 2026 found that significant problems remained.
Tachograph infringements and drivers' hours compliance
Thirteen occasions of driving without a tachograph card
DVSA Traffic Examiner Childs identified 13 occasions between 2 December 2025 and 6 February 2026 when company vehicles had been driven without a driver card inserted in the tachograph.
The investigation also identified weaknesses involving missing mileage reports, infringement monitoring and disciplinary procedures.
Four drivers attended related hearings and admitted driving without their tachograph cards.
Importantly, the drivers did not claim that the operator had encouraged or instructed them to do so.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner nevertheless identified serious weaknesses in the company's arrangements for detecting and investigating such incidents.
Why management oversight was inadequate
One example involved two incidents where the operator believed a driver had inserted their card into the wrong tachograph slot.
The Traffic Examiner explained that the available printout did not support that explanation.
The company director had not spoken to the driver to establish what had happened, and the Transport Manager had not challenged the explanation or investigated directly.
The Commissioner considered this an example of ineffective management oversight.
GT Transport Services explained that some drivers' hours problems had arisen during changes between tachograph monitoring systems.
The company had subsequently moved to Tachomaster and engaged external consultants.
Although these improvements were acknowledged, the Commissioner remained concerned about whether infringements would be properly investigated and addressed in future.
The lesson for operators: downloading tachograph data and generating infringement reports are only part of the process.
An effective system must identify irregularities, obtain explanations, record corrective action and monitor whether problems recur.
Our guide What Does a Transport Manager Need to Do Every Month? explains how these checks should form part of ongoing transport management.
Operating from an unauthorised operating centre
Another significant issue involved the company's operating centre arrangements.
GT Transport Services moved vehicles associated with all three licences to premises in Greenford in January 2026.
However, the operator did not apply for approval of the new operating centre until April.
The director explained that the business had initially been uncertain how long it would remain at the premises.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner rejected the suggestion that this uncertainty justified operating from the location without the necessary authority.
He also criticised the Transport Managers for failing to recognise and address the problem.
The company subsequently obtained interim approval for the Greenford site, but that did not remove the earlier breach.
The lesson: an operating centre must be appropriately authorised before it is used as the normal base for vehicles requiring that authority.
Businesses moving premises, expanding their fleets or consolidating operations should establish whether an Operator Licence variation is required before making changes.
Vehicle maintenance and recordkeeping failures
DVSA Vehicle Examiner Quargraine also identified continuing weaknesses in the company's maintenance arrangements.
These included shortcomings in maintenance records and the thoroughness of inspection processes.
A recent MOT failure involving a steering defect was highlighted during the public inquiry. The examiner considered that the defect should have been addressed before the vehicle was presented for testing.
The operator had changed maintenance providers and introduced improvements.
However, the evidence still did not demonstrate consistently effective systems across the operation.
This illustrates an important distinction between arranging vehicle maintenance and actively managing its effectiveness.
Operators should ensure that inspection records are reviewed, defects are followed through to repair and recurring problems are investigated.
For further guidance, see Common Operator Licence Compliance Failures.
What did the Commissioner find about the Transport Managers?
A central issue was whether the nominated Transport Managers had exercised effective and continuous management.
Mr Dhall and Mr Sayer explained that they had initially managed their respective licences separately.
When the operation was centralised, they divided responsibilities, with Mr Dhall focusing on tachograph and driver matters and Mr Sayer concentrating on maintenance.
Both acknowledged that these arrangements had not worked effectively.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner found that they had failed to identify and address serious compliance shortcomings and had not adequately communicated the seriousness of the situation to the director.
He also considered that both should have recognised the implications of using the unauthorised operating centre.
Did the Transport Managers lose their good repute?
No.
The Commissioner decided that both Transport Managers would retain their good repute, but that it was severely tarnished.
This is a significant regulatory warning, but it is not the same as a finding that good repute has been lost or a formal disqualification.
Mr Dhall had resigned from the GT Transport Services appointment, while Mr Sayer intended to resign following the inquiry.
The company proposed a replacement Transport Manager, whose appointment remained subject to the appropriate process.
The wider lesson is that holding a Transport Manager CPC and being formally nominated on an Operator Licence are not sufficient.
Transport Managers must have the time, authority and involvement necessary to identify problems and ensure corrective action takes place.
What sanctions did the Traffic Commissioner impose?
Deputy Traffic Commissioner John Baker issued his decision on 1 October 2026.
The regulatory outcomes differed across the company's three licences.
Two Operator Licences revoked
Licences OH2077358 and OF2077360 were revoked with immediate effect.
Remaining licence suspended and curtailed
Licence OK2061546 was retained, with a variation confirmed authorising seven vehicles and seven trailers at the Greenford operating centre.
However, it was suspended for seven days, from 00:01 on 19 October until 23:59 on 25 October 2026.
Following the suspension, the licence was curtailed to five vehicles for 28 days.
Period of grace for professional competence
The Commissioner found that the operator no longer satisfied the professional competence requirement.
A two-month period of grace was granted to allow suitable arrangements to be established.
This was a discretionary measure, not automatic approval of the proposed replacement Transport Manager.
Financial standing and independent audit
The operator was required to provide evidence of financial standing covering October to December 2026 by 31 January 2027.
An undertaking was also recorded requiring an independent audit of its maintenance and drivers' hours compliance systems.
The audit report, together with detailed proposals for implementing its recommendations, must be submitted by 31 March 2027.
Why did the Commissioner allow one licence to continue?
The Commissioner described the case as falling within the serious-to-severe category.
He was particularly concerned that similar weaknesses had continued despite earlier DVSA assessments and promises of improvement.
However, he also considered mitigating circumstances.
The company had appointed a new maintenance provider, changed tachograph software, engaged external consultants and introduced additional policies.
The director also appeared to recognise the need for stronger oversight and appropriate disciplinary action where necessary.
The Commissioner concluded that the business should be given an opportunity to demonstrate sustained improvement.
Nevertheless, he emphasised that allowing the remaining licence to continue was a close decision.
Why independent compliance audits matter
The GT Transport Services case demonstrates how compliance weaknesses can remain unresolved even where an operator has established systems and appointed qualified Transport Managers.
An independent audit can provide an objective assessment of whether those arrangements are functioning effectively.
This may include examining:
Maintenance records, safety inspections and defect rectification.
Tachograph downloads, missing mileage and infringement investigations.
Driver management and documented corrective action.
Operating centre authorisations and licence conditions.
Transport Manager responsibilities and management oversight.
The Traffic Commissioners' Operator Compliance Audit guidance specifically recognises independent audits as a means of testing compliance systems.
An audit is not a guarantee against regulatory action. Its value lies in identifying weaknesses and providing evidence-based recommendations for improvement.
RHC explains the process in more detail in What Does a Good Transport Compliance Audit Check?.
What can other operators and Transport Managers learn?
The decision provides several practical lessons.
Investigate infringements properly. Missing tachograph mileage and driving without a card require investigation, not unsupported assumptions.
Follow up previous DVSA findings.
Promised improvements should be implemented, documented and reviewed to establish whether they are effective.
Maintain appropriate operating centre authority.
Changes to premises must be considered alongside Operator Licence requirements.
Define Transport Manager
responsibilities.
Where duties are shared, there must be clear accountability and sufficient oversight across the operation.
Monitor maintenance providers.
Outsourcing inspections does not remove the need to review records and ensure defects are properly addressed.
Test systems independently.
Periodic audits can help identify problems that routine internal monitoring has failed to detect.
Ultimately, the operator and Transport Manager must be able to demonstrate that compliance issues are identified and addressed.
How Road Haulage Compliance can help
Road Haulage Compliance provides independent Transport Compliance Audits for operators seeking an objective review of their existing arrangements.
Our audits examine relevant systems and records, identify weaknesses and provide practical recommendations for corrective action.
For suitable operators across Yorkshire and surrounding areas, RHC also provides External Transport Manager services, offering ongoing professional oversight of transport operations.
Businesses seeking a new or replacement Transport Manager can also use our Find a Transport Manager service, which assists operators across Great Britain in identifying potentially suitable candidates.
Appointments remain subject to the relevant regulatory requirements, and external support does not remove an operator's legal responsibilities.
Conclusion: Effective compliance requires action
The GT Transport Services decision demonstrates that compliance is not simply about having qualified individuals, software and written procedures.
Those arrangements must result in effective monitoring, timely investigation and meaningful corrective action.
Where problems continue despite previous warnings, the consequences can be significant for both operators and Transport Managers.
If you would like an independent assessment of your transport compliance arrangements, contact Road Haulage Compliance to discuss a Transport Compliance Audit.
Official source: Traffic Commissioner decision for GT Transport Services Limited (OK2061546, OH2077358, OF2077360). Decision dated 1 October 2026, published 23 October 2026.
Comments