Fresh Start for Hens CIC, Re

An appeal against a traffic commissioner’s licensing decision succeeds only where the decision is plainly wrong or the facts and law require appellate intervention. An incomplete operator’s licence application cannot be granted where the missing information prevents satisfaction of the statutory fitness requirements. The Upper Tribunal cannot cure fundamental defects by remitting the application for reconsideration or granting the licence itself. A fresh, correctly completed application, with compliant advertising and the required declarations and supporting information, is required.

Fresh Start for Hens CIC appealed against the refusal by the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England of an application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. The application omitted or misstated material information, including the company’s directors, the application declaration, director declarations, the applicant’s legal identity and consistent operating-centre details. Questions also remained concerning the operating centre and maintenance arrangements.

The Traffic Commissioner concluded that he could not be satisfied that the applicant was not unfit to hold a licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The central issue was whether the refusal was plainly wrong and whether the Upper Tribunal could grant the licence or remit the application despite the outstanding deficiencies.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The Upper Tribunal applied the appellate test in Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695. It was not satisfied that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong. The facts and applicable law did not impel the Tribunal to allow the appeal.
2. At the date of refusal, the application remained materially defective. The application declaration had not been signed by a company director; the directors were not properly named; only one director had completed a declaration; the application and advertisement contained different postcodes; and the application was not made in the company’s name. The advertisement instead described the applicant as an individual trading as Fresh Start for Hens.
3. Further issues remained concerning the suitability of the residential operating centre, the need for an on-site assessment, the absence of an external maintenance contract and the lack of evidence of sufficient workshop facilities.
4. These matters were not a simple error. The Traffic Commissioner had given the applicant ample opportunities to remedy the deficiencies, including advice that a new application might be required. On the information supplied, the statutory requirements in sections 13 B and 13 C of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 could not be satisfied.
5. The Tribunal was not in a position either to overturn the decision and remit the application for reconsideration or to grant the licence itself. A fresh application, accompanied by an appropriately worded advertisement and all required information and declarations, was necessary.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal.
• Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: refused the operator’s licence application on 1 May 2022 because the information provided did not enable satisfaction of the statutory fitness requirements.