Anthony Hazell

On an appeal against refusal of an operator’s licence for lack of good repute, the Upper Tribunal will intervene only where the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong. Recent and serious regulatory failures may properly be treated as a more reliable guide to future compliance than an earlier period of good conduct. Rehabilitation requires more than passing an examination or appointing another transport manager. The applicant must accept past failings and provide convincing evidence of changed conduct and reliable future compliance. The Tribunal may assess the proposed management arrangements, maintenance systems, regulatory policies and the applicant’s accuracy and candour in the application process.

Anthony Hazell appealed against the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England dated 14 July 2022, refusing his application for a standard international public service vehicle licence for three vehicles. The application was refused under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 because the Traffic Commissioner was not satisfied that Mr Hazell was of good repute.

Mr Hazell relied on the proposed appointment of Graham Reynolds as transport manager, positive references, a maintenance arrangement and amendments to a mobile-phone policy. The Traffic Commissioner considered his extensive adverse regulatory history, the proposed arrangements and his continuing failure to recognise earlier shortcomings. The central issue was whether the refusal was plainly wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong. The appeal therefore failed under the approach in (2010) EWCA Civ.695.
2. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to place greater weight on Mr Hazell’s recent regulatory history than on an earlier period of apparently trouble-free operation. Recent history was a more reliable guide to what was likely to happen if a licence were granted, and there was no error in failing specifically to refer to the earlier period.
3. The nomination of another transport manager did not, by itself, demonstrate rehabilitation. Mr Hazell needed to accept his considerable past failings and demonstrate that he had changed. Passing the CPC examination and nominating a transport manager with limited transport-management experience were insufficient.
4. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to treat Mr Reynolds’ limited experience and inadequate knowledge of drivers’ hours as relevant. A finding that he was a credible witness did not conflict with a finding that he was inexperienced. The proposed maintenance contract was also inadequate because it was in the name of the wrong entity and gave the operator discretion over repairs in a manner inappropriate in light of Mr Hazell’s history.
5. The Tribunal found that the manuscript amendment to the mobile-phone policy showed continuing lip service to regulatory compliance. It was reasonable to expect a properly rewritten policy after the earlier criticism. Mr Hazell’s incorrect assertion about eight straight MOT passes further demonstrated a cavalier approach to the application process, the Traffic Commissioner and regulatory compliance.
6. Taken together, the serious adverse history, lack of acceptance of past failings and absence of convincing evidence of changed conduct meant that the Traffic Commissioner could not be expected to conclude that Mr Hazell had regained good repute or should be trusted with an operator’s licence.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 14 July 2022.
• Traffic Commissioner for the West of England: refused the application for a standard international public service vehicle licence under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 because Mr Hazell’s good repute was not established.