Shift-It Groundworks (North West) Ltd

An operator must demonstrate that it has the required financial resources at its disposal throughout the relevant period. Where legislation makes failure to meet financial standing a mandatory ground for revocation, a period of grace avoids revocation only if the operator rectifies the deficiency within that period.

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the Upper Tribunal has full jurisdiction on fact and law but does not conduct a fresh first-instance hearing. The appellant bears the burden of showing that the decision was wrong. Fresh evidence which could, with reasonable diligence, have been supplied to the Traffic Commissioner will not ordinarily be admitted.

The appellant held a standard national goods-vehicle operator’s licence for one vehicle. It undertook to provide financial evidence demonstrating compliance with the required financial standing level.

Bank statements for two successive three-month periods showed average available funds below £8,000. The Traffic Commissioner granted a statutory period of grace, but the appellant did not provide satisfactory evidence that it had rectified the deficiency. The licence was revoked.

On appeal, the appellant relied on an asserted £10,000 business-credit facility and arrangements for deferred payment of vehicle repairs. The central issues were whether the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation decision was wrong and whether the Upper Tribunal could consider new evidence of the credit facility.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had not shown that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision to revoke the licence was wrong.

2. Under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985, the Upper Tribunal has full jurisdiction on fact and law. However, as explained in Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695, it does not ordinarily rehear the evidence as a first-instance tribunal. The appellant must demonstrate an error in the Traffic Commissioner’s reasoning or application of law.

3. The appellant was required to show £8,000 available at all times. Its bank statements did not demonstrate that sum on average over either required continuous three-month period. The calculation method and arithmetic were not challenged.

4. Failure to meet financial standing was a mandatory ground for revocation. The period of grace under section 27(3A) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 gave the appellant an opportunity to rectify matters, but it did not do so. Revocation therefore followed.

5. The asserted credit facility was not evidenced before the Traffic Commissioner. The later e-mail from the credit provider could have been supplied earlier and did not satisfy the requirements in Ladd v Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1 for fresh evidence. Deferred-payment arrangements with repair providers did not remove the statutory obligation to meet the financial-standing requirement. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation of the appellant’s standard national goods-vehicle operator’s licence.

• Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England: revoked the licence by a decision communicated on 4 July 2022, following failure to demonstrate the required financial standing within a period of grace.