Secure Transit Solutions Ltd

An application for a goods vehicle operator’s licence must identify an operating centre that is available to the applicant. An applicant remains responsible for correctly identifying that centre in both its application and the statutory newspaper notice.

An incorrect address in the notice fails to specify the proposed operating centre as required by the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and the Regulations. Where the error may mislead readers or potential objectors, the Traffic Commissioner cannot be satisfied that no person’s interests are likely to be prejudiced. A later corrected notice cannot cure the position on appeal if it post-dates the decision under challenge.

Secure Transit Solutions Ltd appealed against the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland’s refusal of its application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence.

The application and its newspaper notice identified the proposed operating centre as 82 Rupert Street, Birmingham. Later material referred to 180 Rupert Street, but the application was never amended and there was no evidence that the originally specified site was available to the company. After the refusal, the company published a further notice giving the latter address.

The central issues were whether the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to refuse the application because of the incorrectly identified operating centre and whether the later notice could be considered on appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had not shown that the Traffic Commissioner’s reasoning or application of the law required a different conclusion.

2. Under section 13C(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, an applicant must specify an operating centre that is available and suitable. The application specified 82 Rupert Street. Although later documents referred to 180 Rupert Street, the appellant never amended its application and produced no evidence that it owned or controlled 82 Rupert Street. The Traffic Commissioner was therefore entitled to find that the specified operating centre was unavailable and to refuse the application.

3. The appellant bore responsibility for correctly specifying the operating centre in its application and published notice. Any error by its landlord was immaterial. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner’s failure to identify the precise address concern at an earlier stage did not transfer that responsibility.

4. There was also non-compliance with section 11 of the 1995 Act. Regulation 7 and paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 required the notice to specify the proposed operating centre. An incorrect address did not do so. It was plainly capable of misleading readers and potential objectors, so the statutory exception for a defect unlikely to prejudice any person could not apply.

5. Applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, the Tribunal considered the material before the Traffic Commissioner rather than conducting a fresh first-instance hearing. The later notice was a post-decision circumstance and was excluded by paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland’s refusal of the operator’s licence application.
• Traffic Commissioner for Scotland: Refused the application on 26 January 2022 because the wrong operating-centre address had been published in the notice.