Tawakal Foods Limited

A traffic commissioner may revoke an operator’s licence where an unauthorised operating centre has been used and the operator has failed to maintain adequate compliance systems. An assumption that an application or fee has been accepted does not excuse prolonged failure to check or pursue the application. On appeal, later improvements cannot be considered where the governing legislation limits the tribunal to circumstances existing when the commissioner made the decision. In deciding whether revocation is appropriate, the relevant inquiry is the likelihood of future compliance with the operator licensing regime. Commercial consequences do not prevent revocation in a serious case.

The operator held a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. Following a public inquiry, the Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence on grounds including use of an unauthorised operating centre and inadequate systems, records and inspections.

The operator appealed, relying on an alleged application to change the operating centre, subsequent steps to improve compliance, and the risk of redundancies and loss of trade. The operator did not attend the Upper Tribunal hearing, but the panel proceeded on the written evidence and noted the possibility of an application under rule 43 of the Upper Tribunal’s Rules. The central issues were whether the commissioner had erred in assessing the unauthorised operating centre, whether later improvements could be considered, and whether revocation was disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The operator had used an operating centre which was not authorised. The evidence did not establish that an effective application had been made, and the prolonged failure to check or follow up the position justified the weight placed on the breach. Any assumption that a fee or application had been accepted did not excuse that failure. Unauthorised use was also significant because it constituted a criminal offence under section 7 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
2. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to find serious and sustained deficiencies in systems, records, inspections and wider compliance. The Upper Tribunal saw no error in her assessment of the evidence or in the weight she gave to the operator’s failure to engage adequately with the compliance process.
3. Subsequent improvements could not be taken into account. Transport Act 1985, sch.4, para 17(3) precluded the Upper Tribunal from considering circumstances arising after the Traffic Commissioner’s decision.
4. In deciding whether the operator should effectively be put out of business, the commissioner asked the question required by Priority Freight: how likely was future compliance with the operator licensing regime? The operator’s promises had to be assessed against the evidence of whether they would be kept. The commissioner was entitled to conclude that future compliance could not be trusted.
5. The fact that revocation might cause redundancies or loss of trade did not make it disproportionate. A first public inquiry did not bar revocation in a serious case. The formal decision was to dismiss the appeal.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal against revocation of the operator’s licence.
• Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area: following a public inquiry, revoked the licence with effect from 3 March 2023.