Traffic Commissioner David Mullan has refused Xtreme Scaffolding Services Ltd’s application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising one vehicle (OC2081807). The refusal followed a public inquiry held in Golborne on 22 October 2025 and was published on 7 November 2025, with the decision issued on 27 October 2025. The outcome was reached under section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 after findings that the applicant failed sections 13B, 13C and 13D.
The Commissioner proceeded in the applicant’s absence. Calling‑in letters were served by post and email and evidenced as delivered; case‑management directions were not met. Mr Mullan recorded that the business was not actively pursuing the application and that an adjournment would not secure engagement, so he decided the case on the available material.
In weighing fitness and history, the decision notes links to previously revoked or refused licences and insolvency events. The Commissioner described the application as a phoenix attempt to continue the activities of XP Scaffolding Ltd while avoiding liabilities, citing a liquidator’s report showing total debts of about £120,743 including sums owed to HMRC. An earlier Xtreme Scaffolding application was refused in April 2024, with the company told any future bid would need tangible evidence of improvement.
The statutory test for restricted licences requires the Commissioner to consider section 13B (fitness) and section 13C (ability to meet undertakings) and, where considered appropriate, section 13D (financial resources). If any requirement taken into account is not satisfied, section 13(5) mandates refusal of the application.
On section 13B, fitness addresses whether the applicant is not unfit to hold a restricted licence, having regard to relevant activities and convictions. In this case the Commissioner emphasised trust in future compliance, referencing established appellate guidance often framed by the ‘Priority Freight’ question, and found the applicant wanting given the non‑attendance, prior history and failures to engage.
Section 13C requires satisfactory arrangements to comply with drivers’ hours rules, prevent overloading, and maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, supported by a suitable operating centre with sufficient capacity. The applicant provided no evidence of systems to meet these undertakings in advance of the hearing, which the decision treated as a material deficiency.
Section 13D concerns whether maintenance will be prejudiced by insufficient financial resources. Consistent with Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory Document 2, the decision recorded the check levels commonly applied to restricted licences-£3,100 for the first vehicle and £1,700 for each additional vehicle-and noted that current evidence of access to funds had not been provided.
Training alone did not change the outcome. Although both directors had undertaken Operator Licence Awareness Training in May 2025, the Commissioner gave this limited weight against the lack of evidence on systems, engagement and finance. The accompanying GOV.UK notice confirms these points and reiterates that any future application must be supported by proof of proper systems, financial standing and professional competence.
For operators and advisers, the decision underlines three practical messages grounded in law and published guidance: first, the burden rests with the applicant to demonstrate compliance against sections 13B–13D; second, failure to meet case‑management directions or attend inquiry will be taken as a negative indicator for fitness and systems; third, current financial evidence at the recognised levels is expected to show that maintenance will not be compromised.
Full reasons and chronology are set out on the GOV.UK regulatory decision page for application OC2081807, alongside the press release issued on 7 November 2025. These official records remain the authoritative source for the case.