RAM Logistics Ltd

A traffic commissioner must give an operator fair and sufficiently specific notice of the grounds and evidence relied on for revocation. A revocation based on unnotified concerns, identified only shortly before or during the public inquiry, may deny the operator a proper opportunity to answer the case.

A commissioner may assess the quality of documents and may have regard to published maintenance guidance. However, where the commissioner relies on a prior analysis of documents as evidence of new grounds for revocation, procedural fairness ordinarily requires prior notification of the alleged defects and a fair opportunity for rebuttal. The decision must also identify the statutory revocation grounds, the relevant breach, and the evidence supporting it.

RAM Logistics Ltd appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 30 December 2021 revoking its heavy goods vehicle operator’s licence. The calling-in letter identified late notification of a directorship, a material change of circumstances, and possible links with related companies.

After the public inquiry, the Commissioner relied additionally on alleged deficiencies in maintenance records, driver defect reporting and checks of drivers’ available hours. The Commissioner found that the operator no longer met the good-repute requirement and revoked the licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The central issues were whether the operator had received a fair opportunity to meet those additional allegations, whether the Commissioner had improperly acted as her own expert witness, and whether the statutory grounds for revocation had been adequately identified and evidenced.

1. Appeal allowed. The revocation decision was plainly wrong. It was set aside and quashed, and the operator’s licence was permitted to continue in effect.

2. The Commissioner denied the operator procedural fairness by revoking its licence on grounds not identified in the calling-in letter or public-inquiry case summary. The operator was not properly informed of the case to answer concerning maintenance systems, defect sheets and drivers’ hours. A brief oral indication at the hearing was both too late and insufficiently specific. If those matters were to be relied on, an adjournment and written notice of the factual and legal allegations were required.

3. The Commissioner did not reverse the burden of proof merely by relying on documents supplied by the operator. Nonetheless, she relied on a case for revocation without first establishing a prima facie revocation ground and after the original notified grounds had not been made out.

4. On the facts, the Commissioner’s own prior analysis of the documents, without independent examination or advance notification, made her effectively her own witness on the new allegations. Although a commissioner may assess the quality of paperwork as adjudicator, the alleged defects at least had to be notified in advance so that the operator could address them by evidence and submissions. The operator had no right to cross-examine the Commissioner herself.

5. The Commissioner was entitled to take account of the DVSA guidance on roadworthiness. But the factual findings drawn from the documents were undermined by the operator’s explanations. In particular, there was no evidence that a crossed-out defect entry concealed a defect or that a director or transport manager had to review every individual document.

6. The decision also failed to identify the condition, false statement, unfulfilled undertaking, or material change relied on for the respective grounds under section 26. Those omissions were material errors of fact and law. The balancing exercise was qualitative, not a numerical comparison of favourable and adverse indicators.

7. Remittal was inappropriate. The original notified concerns had not been established, and the later grounds were neither properly notified nor supported by independent investigation. A future fresh investigation, calling-in letter and public inquiry remained open if properly grounded and evidenced.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal, set aside and quashed the revocation decision, and permitted the licence to continue in effect.
• Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area: on 30 December 2021 revoked the operator’s licence under sections 26 and 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.