Precision Vehicle Logistics Ltd

On an appeal against refusal of an operator’s licence, the Upper Tribunal considers whether the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong. The Tribunal determines the appeal by reference to the circumstances existing when the decision was made. A standard licence must be refused where the applicant has not demonstrated that it has designated the required number of suitably qualified and otherwise eligible transport managers. Later explanations, proposed appointments or changes in circumstances cannot cure the failure on appeal. Where the statutory requirement was unsatisfied at the decision date, refusal is mandatory.

The appellant applied for a standard operator’s licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The Traffic Commissioner refused the application under section 13(5), concluding that the appellant had not demonstrated that it had designated a suitable transport manager meeting paragraph 14A(1) and (3) of Schedule 3.

The appellant appealed, relying on difficulties in appointing an external transport manager and alleged failures in communication about the outstanding information and deadline. The central issue was whether, on the facts existing on 29 September 2022, the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal was plainly wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal upheld the refusal of the standard operator’s licence.
2. Under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, s 13(1)(a), the Traffic Commissioner had to consider whether the requirements of ss 13A and 13C were satisfied. Under s 13A(3), an applicant that was not an individual had to designate a suitable number of individuals satisfying the requirements in paragraph 14A(1) and (3) of Schedule 3.
3. The Upper Tribunal’s appellate task was to decide, on objective grounds, whether a different view from that taken by the Traffic Commissioner was the right one, or whether reason and the law compelled a different view, applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 at [40]. The Tribunal could consider only circumstances existing at the date of the decision under appeal.
4. At the decision date, the appellant had named an individual in its application but had provided nothing to establish his qualifications. It had subsequently changed its mind and intended to appoint an external organisation, but had not put a qualifying transport manager in place by the deadline. The statutory requirement was therefore unsatisfied.
5. Section 13(5) required the Traffic Commissioner to refuse the application where a requirement taken into consideration under s 13(1) was not satisfied. The refusal was consequently not plainly wrong and the appeal had to be dismissed. The Tribunal also rejected the complaint that the appellant was unaware of the deadline, since the relevant letter had been sent by email and recorded delivery.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 29 September 2022 dismissed.