Robert Brow

An appeal against a Traffic Commissioner’s licensing decision should be allowed only where the decision was plainly wrong or disproportionate, or where the facts and applicable law impel the appellate tribunal to intervene. An applicant for a restricted operator’s licence must provide reliable evidence demonstrating both fitness to hold a licence and satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition. Knowledge gaps, careless disregard of licensing requirements, inadequate maintenance documentation and dishonesty may together justify refusal.

Robert Brow appealed against the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England’s refusal of his application for a restricted operator’s licence under sections 13B and 13C(4) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The application had followed earlier licensing difficulties involving companies connected with Mr Brow and Carol Grayling.

The Deputy Traffic Commissioner allowed time for further training and documentation, and an interim licence was later granted. Mr Brow did not provide satisfactory operational records or compliant documentation. The Traffic Commissioner ultimately remained unsatisfied that he was fit to hold a licence and had satisfactory maintenance arrangements. The central issue was whether that decision was plainly wrong, disproportionate, or otherwise required to be overturned.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Upper Tribunal applied the appellate approach in Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695: intervention was justified only if the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong or disproportionate, or if the facts and law impelled the Tribunal to allow the appeal.

2. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to assess the appellant’s fitness and maintenance arrangements by reference to the evidence actually provided. The appellant had failed to provide a satisfactory driver handbook, usable driver defect reports, a relevant PMI record and a properly evidenced maintenance arrangement. His proposed documentation was largely generic, incomplete or unrelated to the proposed operation.

3. The appellant’s evidence disclosed significant knowledge gaps despite his transport manager CPC and refresher courses. He did not understand important aspects of driver defect audits, brake testing, maintenance records and operational compliance. The Tribunal regarded his failure to adapt and consider the documents as demonstrating a careless disregard of licensing requirements.

4. The appellant also accepted that he had falsely stated that the nominated operating centre remained available. That dishonesty was relevant to whether he could be trusted to operate compliantly.

5. Accordingly, the Traffic Commissioner was not plainly wrong or disproportionate in finding that the appellant had not shown that he was fit to hold a licence or that he had satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition. The facts and applicable law did not require appellate intervention.

• Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: refused the restricted operator’s licence application under sections 13B and 13C(4) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal.