Lineage UK Transport Ltd

An Upper Tribunal appeal against a Traffic Commissioner’s exercise of discretion succeeds only where the decision was plainly wrong, or where a material error of law is shown. Guidance on vehicle maintenance may inform whether an operator has effective compliance systems, but does not itself impose statutory requirements. Regulatory sanctions may legitimately contain an element of deterrence and may be imposed to mark the need for future compliance, without being punitive. A sanction may remain proportionate even where it causes no practical operational detriment.

The appellant operated a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence. Following a prohibition arising from brake defects and a DVSA investigation, the Traffic Commissioner found inadequate roller brake-testing systems and curtailed the licence from 70 vehicles to 56 for 28 days.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the action was disproportionate, punitive, based on treating the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness as legally binding, and inconsistent with the Regulator’s Code. The central issues were whether the Traffic Commissioner had erred in law or exercised his discretion improperly.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal applied the established approach that an appellant challenging factual findings or the exercise of discretion must show that the decision was plainly wrong. A challenge based on misunderstanding or misapplication of law requires a material error of law. The Traffic Commissioner’s decision was adequately reasoned and proportionate.
2. The Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness was guidance on good practice, not legislation or statutory guidance. It could nevertheless permissibly inform the assessment of whether the operator had effective systems for maintaining roadworthiness. The Traffic Commissioner had not treated the recommended frequency of roller brake testing as a statutory obligation.
3. The regulatory action was not punitive. The Traffic Commissioner imposed a moderate sanction as a marker of the future expectation of compliance. Regulatory action may include deterrent or disciplinary considerations where those considerations assist the purposes of the legislation. It need not be confined to the most serious operators, and it may be justified even where it has no practical adverse operational effect.
4. The Upper Tribunal did not need to determine fully whether the Regulator’s Code applied to individual Traffic Commissioner decisions. The sanction was directed at a case where action was needed, and the Code and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 added nothing material to the requirements arising from the legislation, case law and Statutory Guidance. The Traffic Commissioner had not imposed punishment.
5. The Traffic Commissioner had undertaken the required balancing exercise, taking account of the operator’s otherwise favourable record, remedial steps and the seriousness of the brake-testing failures. There was no identified obligation to treat reputational damage or confidence in the regulatory regime as separate considerations. The appeal was dismissed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the Traffic Commissioner for the North-West of England dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North-West of England: following a public inquiry on 25 August 2022, curtailed the operator’s licence from 70 to 56 vehicles for 28 days.