Able 1 Scaffolding Limited

An appeal against revocation of an operator’s licence will fail where the operator accepts that the Traffic Commissioner made no error and that revocation was justified. Failure to notify the Office of the Traffic Commissioner of a material change to the operating centre, coupled with failure to respond to correspondence, may support immediate revocation under section 26 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The appellant held a restricted operator’s licence authorising vehicles and trailers at an operating centre from which it had been evicted. It did not notify the Office of the Traffic Commissioner of the change or provide updated contact details. After correspondence was sent to the recorded addresses and email address, the appellant failed to respond, and the Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence with immediate effect on 4 January 2023.

On appeal, the appellant accepted that the Traffic Commissioner had acted correctly. The central issue was whether there was any merit in the appeal.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant accepted that the Traffic Commissioner had “done the right thing” in revoking the restricted operator’s licence. On that basis, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal.
2. The appellant had been evicted from its authorised operating centre but had not informed the Office of the Traffic Commissioner of that material change or explained how it proposed to operate without a suitable operating centre. It had also changed its email address without updating the licensing records.
3. The Traffic Commissioner’s minded-to-revoke letter identified concerns that the appellant was no longer using its authorised operating centre and was in breach of section 26(1)(a), section 26(1)(c)(iii), section 26(1)(e) and section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The letter was sent to the recorded addresses and email address, but the appellant failed to respond. Revocation with immediate effect followed.
4. The Tribunal noted that paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 ordinarily prevents it from taking into consideration evidence that was not before the Traffic Commissioner. The Tribunal was not required to consider the appellant’s further account because the appellant accepted that the appeal had no merit. The account was summarised only to provide background.
5. The appellant was advised that, having found a yard which might be suitable as an authorised operating centre, it should make a fresh application.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 4 January 2023 dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the South East & Metropolitan Traffic Area: restricted operator’s licence revoked with immediate effect.