Wychwood School Oxford Ltd

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the Upper Tribunal reviews the material and circumstances existing when the decision was made. It cannot take account of later arrangements which were not before the Commissioner. The appeal will succeed only where the reasoning or application of the relevant law requires a different view; equivalently, the Commissioner must have been plainly wrong.

Under Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, an applicant for a PSV operator’s licence must demonstrate adequate facilities or arrangements for maintaining the proposed vehicle in a fit and serviceable condition. Where the applicant fails to provide requested evidence of a preventative maintenance arrangement, refusal of the application is lawful.

Wychwood School Oxford Ltd appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 20 September 2021 refusing its application for a restricted PSV operator’s licence for a school minibus.

The school had become a limited company and therefore required a licence. It stated that the leased vehicle had an annual service and MOT, received weekly checks, and travelled fewer than 3,000 miles annually. Despite requests from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, it did not provide a maintenance contract or evidence of a managed preventative maintenance regime.

After the refusal, the school entered into an eight-week maintenance agreement. The central issues were whether that later evidence could be considered and whether the Commissioner’s decision, on the material then available, was plainly wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Traffic Commissioner’s refusal was neither legally nor factually erroneous on the material available on 20 September 2021.

2. Paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 prevented the Tribunal from considering the maintenance contract made on 15 October 2021. The appeal had to be determined by reference to the circumstances existing when the Commissioner decided the application.

3. The Tribunal applied Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and another v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695. It would intervene only if the Commissioner’s reasoning and application of the law required a different view. That was consistent with the plainly wrong appellate standard stated by Lord Shaw in Clarke v Edinburgh & District Tramways Co Ltd [1919] UKHL 303.

4. Section 14ZC(1)(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 required adequate facilities or arrangements to maintain the vehicle in a fit and serviceable condition. The Commissioner was entitled to seek documents establishing that requirement. Annual servicing, an MOT and weekly checks did not supply the requested evidence of a preventative maintenance arrangement. The school’s failure to provide a maintenance contract meant that the statutory requirement was not shown to be met.

5. The Tribunal suggested that the school could make a fresh licence application supported by its subsequently signed maintenance contract.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of the restricted PSV operator’s licence.

• Traffic Commissioner for the West of England Traffic Area: on 20 September 2021 refused the application because adequate maintenance arrangements had not been demonstrated.