James Craig & Partners t/a J Craig and Son

An applicant for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence bears the burden of proving that it meets the statutory requirements. Operator licensing depends on evidence-based trust. A traffic commissioner need not accept assurances of future compliance where the applicant has not demonstrated current knowledge, skill, ability and willingness to comply with the regulatory regime and licence undertakings.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal will not substitute its preferred view. The appellant must establish objectively that the traffic commissioner’s reasoning and application of law required a different conclusion. Fresh evidence will not ordinarily be admitted if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the public inquiry.

The partnership applied for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence for two vehicles and four trailers after its former standard national licence had been revoked in 2020 for failure to meet financial standing. In the earlier proceedings, the Traffic Commissioner had expressed concerns about the partnership’s knowledge of drivers’ hours rules and its failure to provide requested documentation.

The Deputy Traffic Commissioner refused the new application on 15 March 2023. He was not satisfied that the partnership was fit to hold a licence, or that it had satisfactory arrangements for compliance with drivers’ hours rules and vehicle maintenance. The partnership appealed, relying on its operating history, its farming credentials and further documents tendered for the first time on appeal.

The central issue was whether the Deputy Traffic Commissioner had been plainly wrong to refuse the restricted licence and whether the further evidence could be admitted.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision was confirmed in all respects. The partnership had not shown that the refusal of its restricted licence application was plainly wrong.

2. Under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, an applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that it meets the regulatory conditions. The requirements concerning fitness and satisfactory arrangements for lawful vehicle operation are not met by bare assurances. Operator licensing is founded on trust, but the required trust must rest on evidence of knowledge of the regime and the skill, ability and willingness to implement it.

3. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner was entitled to find that the partnership had provided no evidence of proposed systems for vehicle maintenance or compliance with drivers’ hours rules. Its farming business, financial evidence and Red Tractor certification did not demonstrate competence or willingness to comply with the distinct heavy-goods-vehicle regulatory regime. A transport manager CPC was not required for a restricted licence, but refresher training would have been one available means of showing current knowledge. Mr Craig’s practice of consulting online material only when a question arose did not remedy the identified deficiency.

4. The partnership had been specifically warned in 2020 of concerns about its knowledge and its failure to provide documents. Although an earlier template letter may have been inadequately adapted, the later call-up letter clearly identified the evidence required. Difficulty in obtaining a maintenance contract without vehicles did not answer the wider failure to provide evidence of any proposed maintenance or drivers’ hours systems.

5. Applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ. 695, the Tribunal held that an appeal is not a rehearing. The appellant must establish objective grounds requiring a different view, rather than merely grounds on which the Tribunal might prefer one.

6. The additional documents and photographs were inadmissible under Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1WLR 1489. They could with reasonable diligence have been obtained and presented at the public inquiry. The request to admit them was refused.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal and confirmed the refusal of the restricted operator’s licence application, [2023] UKUT 210 (AAC).

• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area: refused the application on 15 March 2023 because the statutory requirements concerning fitness and satisfactory compliance arrangements were not established.