ALPS Scaffolding Ltd

An appeal against a Traffic Commissioner’s licensing decision is not a fresh first-instance hearing. Although the Upper Tribunal has jurisdiction over fact and law, the appellant must show objectively that the Commissioner’s decision was wrong, rather than merely that another view was possible.

Failure to comply with a financial-evidence undertaking, inadequate financial standing, and unnotified changes relevant to the licence may justify revocation where they rationally support a finding that the operator cannot be trusted to comply in future. Revocation may remain proportionate although it may affect the business’s survival. Full reasons should be given when revocation occurs, but an earlier procedural deficiency may be cured where the appellant receives the reasons and a fair opportunity to address them on appeal.

ALPS Scaffolding Ltd appealed the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 26 May 2021 to revoke its goods vehicle operator’s licence. The Commissioner relied on the company’s failure to provide financial evidence as required by an undertaking and its apparent lack of financial standing.

The company had supplied statements in its former name, which showed an average balance below the required level. It had also failed to notify a change of director. It did not request a public inquiry before revocation. The Upper Tribunal had stayed revocation pending the appeal.

The central issues were whether the Commissioner’s decision was wrong on the material available at the time, whether revocation was proportionate, and whether the delayed disclosure of the detailed reasons caused unfairness requiring a different result.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal confirmed the revocation with immediate effect and ended the stay. Under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985, the Tribunal had full jurisdiction on fact and law, but it was not required to conduct a fresh first-instance hearing. Applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd and Anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 and Subesh and ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 56, the appellant had to show that the Commissioner’s reasoning and application of law required a different conclusion, not merely that one was available.

2. The Commissioner was entitled to find serious and repeated non-compliance. The company had not supplied the financial evidence required by its undertaking by the stipulated date. The later statements were in the former corporate name and showed insufficient funds during the relevant period. It had also failed to notify the change of directorship. Those matters supported the conclusion that it could not then be trusted to comply in future.

3. Revocation under section 26(1)(f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 was rational and proportionate. The Tribunal considered the effect on the business, including the possibility that it might cease trading, but was not required to grant further leeway. A fresh application was not unduly onerous if the company could now demonstrate compliant financial standing and vehicle maintenance.

4. The detailed internal reasons ought to have been supplied to the licensee when, or before, revocation was decided. Giving full reasons is a fundamental requirement of natural justice and procedural fairness. On these facts, however, any unfairness was cured: the company received the detailed reasons in the appeal bundle and had a sufficient opportunity to answer each of them at the hearing.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation decision with immediate effect.
• Traffic Commissioner for North West England: revoked the appellant’s operator’s licence on 26 May 2021 under section 26(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.