Traffic Commissioner refuses Munro licence application  The Traffic Commissioner for Scotland, Joan Aitken refused an application from Mr Roderick Munro and Mrs Claire Munro for a standard national goods vehicle licence. Ms Aitken called them to attend a public inquiry in Inverness on 8 July 2010 to consider their licence application for six vehicles and six trailers operating from Alness and trading as Munro Midland. The full text of the Traffic Commissioner's decision is below. Details of her consideration of the evidence and her decision can be found from paragraph 39.   TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995 APPLICATION BY RODERICK & CLAIRE MUNRO - OM1093850 PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD AT INVERNESS ON 8 JULY 2010 DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER 

BACKGROUND 1. Mr Roderick David Munro (b.1977) and Mrs Claire Michelle Munro of Reloas House, 10 Poppyfields, Ripley, Derbyshire applied for a standard national goods vehicle operator licence, with authorisation for 6 vehicles and 6 trailers.  They gave a trading name of Munro Midland.  The nominated operating centre was given as 5 River Drive, Alness Industrial Estate, Alness, which they indicated was leased to them.  They gave their main trade or business as skip hire/waste transfer/refuse.   Mr Samuel Robb Eddie was nominated as Transport Manager. 2. Given the Munro surname, the intended operating centre and the nature of the business, it appeared to me that there were connections between this application and revoked licence OM23178 held by Munro & Sons (Highland) Ltd.  Accordingly, I decided that I must hear this application at Public Inquiry.  I refused to grant an interim licence. PUBLIC INQUIRY 1. The Public Inquiry was held at Inverness on 8 July 2010.  Mr Roderick Munro, applicant, was present and represented by Mr S Newman, Solicitor, Doncaster.  The nominated Transport Manager, Mr S Eddie, was also present. 2. The usual Public Inquiry brief and an addendum had been issued.  Extensive productions were lodged by the applicant.  I confirm that I have had regard to all of these.  A medical certificate in very general terms stated that it would be difficult for Mrs Munro to attend the hearing.   I was told by Mr Munro that the after affects of a car accident of many years ago were that Mrs Munro had difficulty with public events which made her attendance at any Public Inquiry not possible. MUNRO & SONS (HIGHLAND) LTD 

3. Copied within the Public Inquiry brief was my decision and that of the Transport Tribunal in relation to Munro & Sons (Highland) Ltd which held goods vehicle operator licence OM23178 and which was revoked with disqualification including, the 3 directors.  The directors of Munro & Sons (Highland) Ltd were Mr David Munro, Mr William Munro and Miss Pamela Munro respectively the uncle, father and sister of the current applicant Mr Roderick Munro and relative in-law of the applicant Mrs Claire Munro.  The revocation and disqualifications followed upon that operator's vehicles and trailers being found unroadworthy on many occasions but, most significantly and tragically, in circumstances which gave rise to the death of young woman on 5 July 2006 and the serious injury on 13 November 2008 of a male car driver.   The Transport Tribunal upheld my decision. 4. My written decision and that of the Transport Tribunal must be read fully for their terms and I hold them repeated herein brevitatis causa (lawyers' words for as if fully repeated in this decision).  For what is narrated therein is the critical and material context in which the application by Roderick and Claire Munro has been made, that is the application is by family members following revocation and disqualifications of a family business/family members.  The Transport Tribunal decision was dated 3 September 2009.  This application was made on 24th December 2009. TRANSPORT MANAGER 5. A further matter to be considered at the Public Inquiry was the Transport Manager nomination (Form TM1(G)).  Mr Eddie has a home address of Buckie, some distance from the proposed operating centre.  He is an employee of William Munro Construction Ltd of Alness working there week days.  At box 8 of the form he was asked to list any other licences on which he is Transport Manager or licence holder and that was left blank.  He had signed the form on 24 December 2009.   In fact, Mr Eddie is the nominated Transport Manager on licence 80:20 Procurement Services Ltd OM1079085, which is based at East Tullos Industrial Estate, Aberdeen and which is a live licence, with a vehicle specified.  As at the date of the Public Inquiry, my office understood him to be the Transport Manager on that licence, the directors of which are Messrs P Dorward and T Bannon. OTHER DOCUMENTATION LODGED WITH THE APPLICATION 6. The applicants produced a lease between their firm and William Munro and Jean Munro (i.e. Mr Roderick Munro's parents) in their capacity as management trustees of the William Munro Construction (Highland) Ltd retirement benefit plan,  the subjects being 5 Riverside Drive aforesaid, with a date of entry of 1 January 2010 and a stated rent.   No vehicles were specified on the application, the applicant indicating that Volvo Bus & Truck had vehicles available and that safety inspections would be undertaken by Volvo.   Financial standing was satisfied by bank statements in name of the applicants and was not an issue for the Public Inquiry.   EVIDENCE AND PRODUCTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT 7. I record here that the applicant lodged two folders of productions and other bound documents, the bulk being examples of health & safety documentation put in name of William Munro Construction (Highland) Ltd, including Munro (Highland) Ltd and Invergordon Sand & Gravel; a safety method statement dated 3 July 2010 for the demolition of 19/20 Huntley Street, Inverness for Ogilvie Construction Ltd of Stirling; a national demolition training groups tool box talk; and a folder badged RHA and Munro Midlands containing information for LGV drivers; and many other health & safety related policy documents and contracts of employment.  

8. The applicants joined the RHA, their certificate of membership being dated 1 June 2010 and Mr Munro is booked on the RHA CPC examination diet of 10 September 2010 and has paid for a home study kit.   9. A letter was lodged from Johnston Carmichael CAs advising that P Munro resigned as director of Munro (Highland) Ltd on 31 July 2008 and D J Munro on 30 September 2009.  They wrote "we understand as part of ongoing restructuring of the company, it is intended that W Munro will resign as a director by end of 2010". MR RODERICK MUNRO'S EVIDENCE 10. The partnership of Munro Midlands, that is Roderick Munro and Mrs Munro was established in 2007 through capital introduced by Mrs Munro.  He is the son of William Munro being one of five siblings (Pamela aforesaid, Patrick, Gillian and Emma Thompson).  Until 2009, he had no involvement with Munro & Sons (Highland) Ltd.  He had worked for Munro Construction between 1997 and 2000 when he left for England where his brother was.  He is not a director, shareholder or employee of the Munro group of companies.  11. He produced a curriculum vitae for his career to date.  In 2000, aged 22, he had moved to the Stansfield Group Ltd, part of Tarmac, and later in ownership of Cawarden Demolition.  He left them in 2007, aged 29, to form his own consultancy business in which he designated himself senior partner.  Mrs Munro did not go to sites but did the office work.  During his time in the Tarmac Group, he had been identified as fast track management.   He produced 3 testimonials, from a Mr Fry and Messrs Crooks.   12. By way of education, he has an HND in Civil Engineering from Napier University gained in May 1997.  He attended various courses with employers and training institutes, course lengths ranging from a half day to 5 days, many of these courses being site safety related.  In his job with Tarmac, he had supervisory control of a Transport Manager and 8 vehicles.  He believed Tarmac had an 'O' licence.   13. The Munro Midlands partnership is a consultancy service for other demolition and construction contractors providing estimating, management and health & safety services, including dealing with asbestos licences and assisting in contract tendering processes.  He was aware of supervising procedures, auditing, monitoring and getting feedback.  He would attend at customers' sites. 14. It had been in his mind to return to Scotland.   There was a downturn in work, with fewer clients using a management service.  He also wanted to look for a better life for his two young daughters.  He also had concerns about the sustainability of the family business.  They have retained their home in Ripley which had also served as an office but have rented a house at Heathfield, Invergordon and the older child attends the local primary school. 15. The reason for the application was that the Munro Midlands business was in decline in England and he needed alternative work.  He considered there was a vacancy in this area for a quality haulage contractor and that he could fill it and it would support the existing family businesses.  He would be doing refuse collection and skip hire.  The proposed operating centre is the same as that used by Munro & Sons (Highland) Ltd as it is family owned property and is vacant and has been used as an operating centre for in excess of the vehicles he was seeking.  There are facilities there with large workshops, though it was not his intention that they would maintain the vehicles themselves but the facilities were for daily inspection, torqueing and the vehicles could be parked under cover.  He was looking to get two skip loader vehicles, two refuse collection vehicles and two multi lift skip vehicles.  He had quotations for maintenance from Volvo.  These would be brand

new vehicles on five year leases.   His father, uncle and sister would play no role whatsoever and that he, Mr Roderick Munro, would be solely responsible, with Mr Sam Eddie as his Transport Manager.  He had spoken to a local recruitment agency about drivers.  No former employee of Munro & Sons (Highland) Ltd would be employed. 16. He saw work coming from local companies whom he had approached but the majority of the work would come from William Munro Construction (Highland) Ltd and local government and agency work, including Highland Council contracts for the transfer of waste and at the RAF. 17. It was his father's intention to retire at the end of 2010, he being aged 67 and health related.  The issues of the previous years have taken a toll on his health and he suffers from various conditions which affects his ability to carry on.  His uncle David is older and has resigned and retired.  His father has recognised that it is time for him to retire and that he, Roderick, would take over as Managing Director of the family companies.  His father would resign from the other companies with the exception of the family's farm which is where he lives.  His father runs that farm working extremely long hours 7 days a week.  He leaves home at 5am and is at the office at Alness before 6am and is there until 7pm and every weekend, all weekend his is on the family farm.  18. He and his firm Munro Midlands have provided management services to Munro (Highland) Ltd and William Munro Construction Ltd on a consultancy basis putting in management and health & safety procedures as he did for customers in England.  He also succeeded in having William Munro (Highland) Ltd granted their asbestos renewal licence and achieved environmental certification.  He had introduced new health & safety and risk assessments to the companies.  They were moving to handover the directorship of the company to his sole control at the end of the year to allow the companies to move forward and be sustainable with future employment in the area.  There would be a short handover period with his father.  At the moment all transport is subcontracted to approved contractors,  for example, D R McLeod service the construction company and Avondale Landfill and MSA Logistics do some of the council work.  There is also subcontracting to Yuill & Dodds.  They operate waste transfer facilities at Cromwell Road, Inverness and at Beechwood and Deephaven, Evanton.  If the application was granted, he would step in in place of these contractors.  He understood the duties on an operator and about drivers' hours, first use checks and that vehicles and trailers had to be suitable, speed limits kept, defect reporting undertaken and record keeping.  He also knew that they had to keep the authorised vehicles at the operating centre and to notify the Traffic Commissioner of any changes to the company.  He had a good understanding of what was required and hoped to gain his CPC in September 2010.  It was also their intention that the RHA do an audit for them of their systems at two monthly intervals in the first year and that they will give manual handling training.  He desired to do things properly and to exacting standards.  He would discipline any employee in breach of company policies.  He wanted to make the company a blue chip company and to be proud of it.  He was experienced in demolition work and health & safety work and creating safe systems for road haulage.  Drivers would receive a driver information pack. 19. He would be responsible for Munro's haulage business to ensure it complied and, if it expanded, they would have to bring in experienced staff. 20. The reference in the Traffic Commissioner's decision of 25 March 2009 at paragraph 8 3rd sentence ""Mr Munro wrote to me with calculations from son" did not refer to him but to his brother Patrick who is a design engineer.  He had read the Traffic Commissioner's decision and his feelings were that the business had expanded far too fast, without control and with insufficient management and

policies.  The events which had taken place, including the fatal accident and the other accident, had impacted on his family and they had to live with the implications and their consciences and abuse that had been received at various levels from people and in the papers.  People had been abusive, that took its toll.  He was of a different breed to his family and that he had been trained by Tarmac and had worked on demolition contracts and had not had any accidents.  He was proud of his record and it was not his intention to run a poor operation.  He accepted that he was young.   21. He felt that if he had been involved in the companies, it would have been different.  He was disappointed in his uncle and his sister as there were sufficient warnings for them to have prevented it.  He did not want to comment on his father as he was his father.   His mother had even received abuse in the supermarket.  In this area everyone knew everyone else and knew what had happened.  He wanted to make it a professional operation.  It would not be cheaply run and would be 100% compliant and would show the local area it could be done properly.   Health & safety did not cost very much in his experience.  22. He did not know who the shareholders were of the family business.  He thought the majority would be in his father's and mother's names and with a trust fund with shares but did not know how it worked.  Munro (Highland) was a wholly owned subsidiary.  I put it to him that his mother and father were the wholly controlling influence and he said that was changing.  His father would cease to be a director.  That was nothing to do with the licence application but because of retirement and the ongoing development of the business and his need to take control.  His mother and father did own the companies at present but he did not know if they were going to gift shares or what they would do.  He did not know what arrangements there would be between him and his four siblings.  They have their own careers and have nothing to do with the contracting business.  There are no cousins with interests in the business. 23. He wanted the haulage business so that they would regain control of the group's operation.  He had done a financial plan for the haulage firm.  He was not involved in what had happened in the past, he had his own professional career of which he was proud and he hoped the public would give him a chance.  He wanted to gain control of the companies' operation as a whole.  He reiterated that his partnership was not involved in the accident with Munro & Sons.  He could have applied to open a haulage company in England as he was a different person.  He hoped to get this opportunity. 24. Joining the RHA on 1 June had been on the advice of his Solicitor.  He used to go to the National Federation of Demolition Contractors in England and found it similar. MR SAMUEL EDDIE'S EVIDENCE 25. I was presented with Mr Eddie's CV (production 5).  He is in his late 50s and has worked his way up through transport from 1966 and obtained his CPC by grandfather rights initially and later when employed by Stoneyhill Ltd had sat the CPC exam in 2004.  Prior to that, he had worked for various transport companies, including initially in the family business and then as a self employed driver.  He worked for Stoneyhill from March 2000 to October 2007 when it was taken over by  SITA UK Ltd and he worked for them until 27 October 2009 when they lost the Highland Council contract and he was TUPE transferred to William Munro Construction Highland Ltd where he is a waste manager.   26. At Stoneyhill/SITA he was responsible for 17 vehicles and 20 drivers.   His responsibilities included safety and maintenance of the trucks and the drivers and

arranging for inspections and working with the maintenance contractor.  The standards at SITA were very very high.   27. When SITA lost the Highland Council contract, which was a surprise to him as he was expected to continue working on that contract with SITA, he was involved in the transfer of the contract to William Munro Construction Ltd.  SITA had been doing that contract for 7 or 8 years. 28. He agreed to be the Transport Manager of Munro Midlands as he felt able to do it as that is what he had done most of his life and he liked trucks. 29. He feels he has a good reputation and does the job well.  He has told Mr Munro that it would all have to be done correctly and his way.  He feels Mr Munro has the same feelings.   They wanted nice clean trucks.  Asked about whether Mr William Munro or any other would have influence, he said he would not accept it and would have to discuss it with Roderick Munro but he would not accept interference with the trucks.  He had not met David or Pamela Munro and had not met Roderick Munro until November 2009. 30. His current role is to oversee the waste contract but now people are in place with supervision and everyone knows what they are doing, so his role is an overseeing one.  From his home to the operating centre is 73 miles and he has been used to travelling all of his life and he likes the time to think and plan that the travelling time gives him.  Sometimes he does stay in Alness or Inverness overnight, especially in winter.  When he worked with SITA he was travelling to Peterhead and Inverness as well.  31. I asked about his role with 80:20, he said that he was no longer Transport Manager for that company as he had written to Mr Tony Bannon to withdraw his name.  He did that 2 or 3 weeks prior to the Public Inquiry.  It was a failure on his part not to notify the Traffic Commissioner and them. 32. He agreed that he had given a false answer to question 7 on the TM1 form and his reason was that it was his intention to come off "Tony's lorry" anyway and it was an oversight.  I asked him if he had been undertaking the duties of Transport Manager on that licence and he said that he goes on a Saturday or a Sunday and gets copies of the weekly inspection sheets from "Bob" at Altens who do the maintenance.  He oversees the downloading of the digital tachograph data and is able to see duplicate records.  He was last there 2 or 3 weeks previously but Mr Bannon was not there, being in Belgium.  The vehicle was off road that week.  Prior to that, it would be when he was in either Aberdeen or Peterhead of a weekend.  He still has family in the area.   Mr Bannon or anyone concerned with the operator would not necessarily have seen him but the records were at Greenbank Road where he would have been seen on a regular basis.  He had spoken to Tony who said he would sell the truck and buy a small van which he is in process of doing.  He had not told Mr Roderick Munro about the other licence and that was a failure on his part as well.   Asked by me how if he was a Transport Manager going in regularly in a Saturday/Sunday to the other licence,  he could forget it and he said that he did not think it was relevant.  At the time he gave that information to Roderick, it was obviously wrong and it was not an intention to deceive. 33. I asked him if he had loaned his name to the licence and he understood the point I was making but denied that and said that he had been of good intention and that he did make sure the records were all in place with the other licence.  The operator used that vehicle for offshore supplies and delivering gas bottles and such like.  He could only say that his record from the past was more than capable, he recognised that he had let himself down badly and he apologised. 

34. He is an HGV driver and tried to drive as often as he could and will move vehicles in the yard, for example, he moved a Yuill & Dodds vehicle the other day.  At Munros there were no HGVs at all.  All the waste going away was being done by third party haulage. 35. Mr William Munro is his boss at present. CLOSING SUBMISSIONS 36. It was submitted that financial standing had been satisfied.  For professional competence, there was Mr Eddie's experience.  It was an oversight on his part on the TM1 form and he had resigned from the other licence two weeks before and has been removed from it. 37. That left the issue of repute and the licence undertakings.  There was sufficient evidence given by Mr Munro that he would observe the licence undertakings and that he is a separate entity from Mr William Munro or the other two disqualified directors.  Mr William Munro, in any event, is to resign at the end of the year and the other two directors resigned in 2008/9.  Mr Munro's own direct evidence is that he is his own man and determined to help to keep it that way.  This is a proper operation going forward and Mr Munro was frank and honest.  The operation will be staffed by individuals not tainted by the limited company operation.  The Transport Manager will be different, the owner will be different and the drivers will be different.  They would be doing similar sorts of work and taking on some of the contracts as previously.  There was no disqualification against the family name and public perception.  Interpreting the Act, Mr Munro's application should be examined on its own merits. 38. He knows about procedures and in the last 10 years has been with employers and as a consultant in his own right.  He has implemented policies in the limited company of William Munro (Construction) Highland Ltd and he has secured an asbestos licence for them.  That took some effort on his part. CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND MY DECISION 39. A clear starting point in this case is the context in which this application is made.  Mr Roderick Munro is the son of Mr William Munro and Jean Munro and it was not in dispute that there is a holding company and subsidiary companies and that Mr and Mrs Munro senior are the owners and beneficiaries of these companies.  Until 2008 there were 3 directors, then in 2009 Mr David Munro resigned leaving Mr William Munro.  He is the controlling force and influence behind the Munro operations.  I have referred to him as Mr William Munro but he is also known as "Billy Munro" and Billy Munro is this business. 40. I disqualified Mr William Munro from having a goods vehicle operator licence and I did so against the most tragic of backgrounds and against a very bad operating history, with serious deficiencies and neglect of the licence undertakings.  I have indicated at the start of this decision that my full written decision in the Munro & Sons (Highland) Ltd case and also that of the Transport Tribunal must be read for their terms and a full understanding of the background to this case.  Those decisions are incorporated into this case.   41. The decision of the Transport Tribunal effectively closed down the haulage side of the Munro group and forced them into using other entities i.e. subcontractors for their haulage work. 42. It is well known that when an operator is revoked and disqualified and therefore the opportunity to operate goods vehicles on its own account or by way of providing haulage services to others is removed, it is extremely common for

there to be attempts to circumvent the orders of the Traffic Commissioner/Transport Tribunal by using other entities and persons as a front for the disqualified persons.  Thus, it is common place in the scrutiny of licence applications for the Office of the Traffic Commissioner and VOSA to be alive to the real possibility of phoenix operations being established or engineered.   43. Munro Midlands is a partnership of the son and daughter-in-law (and nephew/brother of others).   Hitherto, Mr and Mrs Munro were living and working in England.  Within months of the Transport Tribunal closing down the haulage side of the Munro family business, they lodged this application for a licence.  At the time of lodging the application, they were living in England but they now have a rented home in Ross shire.  The application is for the purpose of providing haulage services to the family business.  It is intended that if granted it will take over the contracts which the family business has had to subcontract to other operators.  It is intended that these contracts come back in house for the sustainability of the family business.  Mr Roderick Munro is the next generation as he tells it, for he tells that he is the only one of his siblings who will continue the family business.   44. Had there not been a connection with the family business, I would be looking at this application in a different light.  There is no compliance history against either Mr or Mrs Munro.  There is financial standing and there is a sufficient indication of knowledge of the obligations required of a goods vehicle operator.  Potentially, I could be satisfied that this applicant could be granted a goods vehicle operator licence.   45. The matter of Transport Manager is not so simple for neither Mr Roderick nor Mrs Claire Munro holds a CPC and thus they are reliant on the nomination of another in this case Mr Samuel Eddie a current employee of the Munro group and one currently under the direct control of Mr William Munro i.e. Mr William Munro is Mr  Eddie's boss.  The other point about Mr Eddie and this to me is very significant is that he gave a misleading and indeed inaccurate answer to question 7 on the TM1 form.  Such questions are there for a very good regulatory purpose, that is to determine whether an applicant or an existing Transport Manager is in fact or could be capable of continuous and effective control.  Mr Eddie lives in Buckie and commutes to Alness along the very busy A96 only sometimes in the winter staying overnight in either Inverness or Alness.  Yet, he had retained himself on the other licence unbeknown to Mr Roderick Munro and so I am left to wonder what he was up to.  Did he ever in fact do his duties properly for the other licence and, if he did, was it his intention to continue to do that thereby working a very long week and in ignorance of his employer?  Mr Eddie said he did not think the answer to that question was relevant to the current application.  That is a bizarre view by him.  I now have doubts as to whether I can trust Mr Eddie given that he cannot be trusted with a very simple form. 46. Reverting to the applicant, if I were to grant this application for all practical purposes my revocation and disqualification orders would have no effect.  Thus, I would be leaving Mr William Munro in a position yet again to control a haulage operation through the family relationship.   There would be no way of enforcing any condition which required his non involvement.  In any event, I cannot trust Mr William Munro and I do not trust him not to have a continuing material influence in the direction of the Munro group of companies.    47. I have another doubt in this case, that is the difficulty of penetrating a CV and testimonials.  I have a suspicion that the CV is an inflated account of Mr Roderick Munro's abilities.  I do not doubt that he has the facility to collate an impressive set of documentation aided recently by his Solicitor in terms of what might look good to a Traffic Commissioner.  Thus, whilst I acknowledge that much of the documentation submitted is just the sort of documentation a Traffic Commissioner

is delighted to see from an applicant/operator, I still reflect on the context in which that documentation is going to be used.  Of course, I am in no doubt that were I to grant this licence, I would take a very harsh view of any prohibitions or failure on the part of the licence and on the operator and there would be early call to Public Inquiry if anything was amiss.  However, I should not have to take any such risk with an applicant. 48. I revert to my decision where I particularly noted that the Munro family "did not get it" see for example, paragraph 108.  See also paragraph 111 where I note that it was a consistent pervasive theme of the operator's evidence to blame everything on others.  At paragraph 116, I had to conclude that they put business before safety.  I pointed out that they came over as genuine, respectable human beings but that was an allure.  I concluded my decision with these words "Disqualified operators often seek to re-emerge in other corporate form.  I warn other operators and persons to be very wary of providing a front for continued operation by Messrs Munro".  This was the first such decision in which I expressly issued a warning against anyone assisting in operating with that operator.   49. Section 13 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 requires me to be satisfied of various matters.   I can be satisfied as to financial standing.  I am not satisfied as to professional competence given Mr Eddie's response.  This is a case in which I cannot take a benign view of such an answer, for this person if acting as Transport Manager would not be acting as such in a benign environment but in one in which there could be the dominate force of Mr Billy Munro in the background and the real risk that in taking over as Managing Director of all of the group companies except the farm, that Mr Roderick Munro would be too stretched even on the very best view on him. I then turn to repute.   I find that I cannot be satisfied on repute.  Repute requires a degree of trust.  I do not trust Mr Roderick Munro.  Mr Roderick Munro has described himself as a senior partner of Munro Midlands so I take him to be a controlling force and therefore I do not dwell on Mrs Claire Munro for I have little to work on there. 50. I have had regard to the case law available to me from the Transport Tribunal (now the Upper Tribunal) jurisdiction.  All cases involving family members seeking effectively to be the phoenix for revoked and disqualified operations turn on their own individual facts and ultimately a Traffic Commissioner seeing the parties has to take a judgement of those facts.  Schedule 3 of the Act at paragraph 1 says that in determining whether an individual is of good repute a Traffic Commissioner may have regard to any matter but shall, in particular, have regard to [convictions] and any other information in her possession which appears to her to relate to an individual's fitness to hold a licence.  I am in no doubt that the family connections and the context in which this application is made, goes to the fitness of the applicant.  But for him being Mr William Munro's son, this application would not be being made.  The father has put the son in place. 51. If I were to grant this applicant, there would be a real risk to public confidence in the goods vehicle operator licensing regime.  For the message it would give would be that a revoked and disqualified person need not worry for all they have to do is to put a close family member up to apply for a licence. 52. It may well be that Mr Roderick Munro and Mrs Claire Munro are worthwhile individuals but I have no way of trusting that and I fundamentally repose no trust in the person who retains the controlling force of ownership of the Munro enterprises.  I take a purposive approach to this application. 53. I refuse the application. Joan N Aitken SSCTraffic Commissioner for Scotland