Harris Travel Limited

Financial standing is a continuing requirement for a standard public service vehicle operator’s licence. Where the requirement is not satisfied, revocation is mandatory unless a valid period of grace is granted and the operator rectifies the position within the specified time.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal must determine whether the commissioner’s decision was wrong. It need not prefer a different view merely because that view is reasonable or possible. The appellant must identify objective grounds showing that the reasoning or application of the law requires a different conclusion. The Tribunal generally assesses the case on the material before the commissioner and cannot consider later circumstances.

Harris Travel Limited appealed against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 22 October 2021 to revoke its standard public service vehicle operator’s licence. The revocation followed a public inquiry at which the operator was found not to have demonstrated appropriate financial standing. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner granted a period of grace until 20 October 2021 for specified, compliant financial documents to be supplied.

The operator supplied incomplete and unauthenticated bank statements and insufficient information about a credit facility. The Upper Tribunal reheard the appeal after an earlier paper determination had been set aside. The central issues were whether the operator had complied with the financial-standing direction, whether the revocation decision was wrong, and whether revocation was disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The operator had not demonstrated that the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision was wrong. The revocation was to take effect two calendar months after the decision was sent to the operator, ending the stay previously granted.
2. Appropriate financial standing was a continuing requirement under section 14ZA of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, determined in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation 1071/2009. If the holder no longer satisfied the requirements of section 14ZA(2), section 17(1)(a) made revocation mandatory, subject to the statutory period-of-grace power in section 17(1A).
3. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner had clearly required authenticated or compliant evidence covering the specified period and had warned that failure to comply would result in revocation. The operator supplied no statement covering June 2021 and no authenticated statements covering a continuous three-month period before the decision. The available figures also showed a substantial shortfall against the required average balance.
4. The appeal jurisdiction under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 was full jurisdiction to determine matters of law and fact, but the Upper Tribunal could not consider circumstances arising after the appealed determination. Applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 and Subesh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 56, the operator had to show objective grounds demonstrating that the reasoning or application of the law required a different view.
5. The effect of revocation on the operator and its director did not outweigh the repeated substantive failures to demonstrate financial standing. The statutory requirement protects the safety of vehicles, passengers and other road users and promotes fair competition. Financial evidence may be demonstrated in different ways, as recognised in Michael Hazell (No.2) T/2017/7, but the credit facility here lacked sufficient information about availability and regulatory registration.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): The appeal against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 22 October 2021 was dismissed. Revocation was deferred for two calendar months after issue of the Upper Tribunal’s decision.
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England Traffic Area: Following a public inquiry on 21 September 2021, the operator was given a period of grace to provide compliant financial evidence. The operator’s licence was revoked on 22 October 2021 for failure to demonstrate appropriate financial standing.