Harris Travel Limited

An operator must demonstrate continuing appropriate financial standing in the manner required by the governing legislation and applicable statutory guidance. Where a Traffic Commissioner grants a period of grace, the operator must provide reliable evidence satisfying the specified requirements by the deadline. The Upper Tribunal determines an appeal on the material before the Traffic Commissioner and cannot generally rely on circumstances arising later. It does not rehear the case afresh. An appellant must show objective grounds demonstrating that the decision, reasoning or application of law was wrong. Financial standing may be shown in different ways, but incomplete, unauthenticated or insufficient evidence need not be accepted. Earlier administrative practice does not prevent the Traffic Commissioner from requiring complete and reliable evidence in a later case.

Harris Travel Limited appealed against the revocation of its standard international public service vehicle operator’s licence by the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England. Following a public inquiry, the Traffic Commissioner found that the company had failed to demonstrate appropriate financial standing and granted a period of grace to provide compliant evidence. The company supplied incomplete or unauthenticated bank statements and insufficient information about a credit facility. The licence was revoked when the deadline expired.

The company argued that the evidence was sufficient and that later material should be considered. The central issues were the scope of the Upper Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction, the relevance of post-decision evidence, and whether the Traffic Commissioner had erred in concluding that the financial-standing requirement remained unsatisfied.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. Under paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985, the Upper Tribunal could not take into account circumstances which did not exist when the decision under appeal was made. Under Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, the Tribunal’s task was not to rehear all the evidence. It had to determine the issues of fact and law on the material before the Traffic Commissioner, without the advantage of hearing witnesses. The appellant bore the burden of showing, on objective grounds, that the decision was wrong.
2. The statutory obligation to maintain appropriate financial standing was continuing. Section 14 ZA(2)(c) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 required financial standing to be determined in accordance with article 7 of Regulation 1071/2009. The Traffic Commissioner had discretion under section 17(1A) to allow a period of grace before mandatory revocation.
3. The company had not supplied authenticated bank statements covering the required period or any continuous three-month period before revocation. The available material also showed an average shortfall. The credit agreement did not establish the necessary available finance because the amount used and the lender’s FCA registration had not been demonstrated, and it did not cover the whole period for which assurances were required.
4. Financial standing could be demonstrated in different ways, as recognised in Michael Hazell (No.2) T/2017/7. However, the evidence in this case was inadequate. Later documents would not have altered the result, even if they could have been considered.
5. Past failure to insist on complete information did not prevent the Traffic Commissioner from requiring it subsequently. The stay of revocation was continued until 23:59 on 13 September 2022 to allow an orderly winding-up if the company was still trading.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 22 October 2021 dismissed. The stay ended at 23:59 on 13 September 2022.