Mixingh Concrete Limited

An operator whose designated transport manager resigns must ensure that a suitable replacement is designated or obtain a period of grace. Failure to do so exposes the operator’s licence to revocation under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

An operator remains responsible for managing its licence, maintaining accurate contact details, monitoring its communications and engaging promptly with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. Where the Traffic Commissioner has reasonably notified the operator of the deficiency and the available steps, an operator’s failure to receive or act on the correspondence through its own omissions does not make revocation wrong.

Mixingh Concrete Limited appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 20 March 2023 to revoke its standard national operator’s licence with immediate effect.

The company’s nominated transport manager resigned with immediate effect. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner sent warning letters to the operating and correspondence addresses and by email, explaining the requirement for a transport manager or a period of grace and inviting representations. The company did not respond or seek a period of grace.

On appeal, its sole director accepted responsibility but said that the company had not operated vehicles, its correspondence address had changed, and its email account had not been monitored. The central issue was whether the revocation should be disturbed.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to revoke the licence under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 after the designated transport manager had resigned and the company neither appointed a replacement nor obtained a period of grace.

2. The Tribunal accepted the director’s explanation for not responding, but held that he was responsible for the resulting position. A licence-holder must acquire and maintain sufficient knowledge to manage its operator’s licence effectively. That includes knowing the requirement to specify at least one vehicle, communicating with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner about operational difficulties, acting promptly after a transport manager’s resignation, understanding the availability of a period of grace, using the VOL system, and notifying any change of correspondence address.

3. The Traffic Commissioner had done all that was reasonably required by sending the warning letter to both recorded addresses and by email. The company’s failure to use its operating centre, update its correspondence address, or monitor its email account did not undermine the validity of that notification.

4. The director accepted that the decision was not plainly wrong. The Tribunal advised that the company should instead apply for a new licence and demonstrate that it could be trusted to operate compliantly in future.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal dismissed in [2023] UKUT 250 (AAC).
• Traffic Commissioner for London and the South East of England: Revoked the company’s standard national operator’s licence with immediate effect on 20 March 2023 under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.