DFL Transport Limited

An operator’s licence may be revoked where the operator fails to maintain required professional competence arrangements, operating-centre information or contact details, and fails to respond to regulatory correspondence. An administrative error in an initial proposal to revoke does not necessarily invalidate the process where a later notice clearly identifies the material concerns and the operator has a proper opportunity to respond. On appeal, the Upper Tribunal will not intervene unless the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong or the facts or applicable law require a different result.

DFL Transport Limited appealed against the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England’s decision dated 28 October 2022 to revoke its operator’s licence under section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. A linked licence had previously been revoked after the operator failed to nominate a transport manager, maintain an operating centre and respond to correspondence. The appellant’s directors had changed, and the company had changed its address and email address without notifying the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. The issue was whether the revocation of the remaining linked licence was plainly wrong, particularly given an administrative error in the first proposal-to-revoke letter.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong, and neither the facts nor the applicable law required the appeal to be allowed.

2. Under section 22 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, and the terms of the licences, DFL was required to notify the Traffic Commissioner of events affecting the professional competence of the operator or transport manager, changes to the specified establishment or correspondence address, and the proposed use of an alternative operating centre. The resignation of the transport manager triggered those obligations. The absence of a specified operating centre and the failure to update contact details were serious regulatory failings.

3. The revocation of the linked licence was materially relevant background. Operating vehicles without a specified operating centre and failing to respond to correspondence justified the Traffic Commissioner’s concerns. Although the first proposal-to-revoke letter for the licence contained an administrative error and stated the wrong basis for concern, a later letter correctly identified the material change relied upon. No response was made to that letter, or to correspondence sent to the operating centre and other known addresses.

4. The company had failed to comply with conditions and undertakings on both licences. Its explanation that changes of director and address had prevented receipt of correspondence did not displace the evidence supporting the revocation. The appeal was therefore dismissed under the approach identified in Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: operator’s licence revoked on 28 October 2022 under section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.