Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd & Anor

An operator’s licence may be revoked only where the statutory requirements for revocation are established on sufficient evidence and after procedural fairness has been observed. Financial standing may be assessed using bank statements and other relevant evidence under the applicable guidance, but a Traffic Commissioner must investigate concerns about the true financial position rather than rely on speculation. Findings on maintenance, driver arrangements, company structures and the operating entity must be supported by evidence and adequate reasons. Operators must receive clear advance notice of the issues to be examined at a public inquiry.

Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd and Rigby’s Executive Coaches Ltd appealed against a Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 11 September 2023 revoking their standard public service vehicle operator’s licences. The revocations followed a joint public inquiry concerning licence variations and related applications. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner found deficiencies in financial standing, maintenance, good repute, driver engagement and the identity of the operating entities.

The appellants challenged the findings on financial standing, maintenance, the operating entity and procedural fairness. The central issues were whether the findings were supported by the evidence and reasons, and whether the appellants had received sufficient notice of the matters relied upon.

Appeal allowed; revocation decisions quashed; matter remitted.

1. Financial standing. Section 14ZA of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 makes appropriate financial standing a continuing requirement by reference to Article 7 of Regulation 1071/2009. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner accepted that the bank statements met the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance, but then went behind them without sufficient evidence or reasons. Concerns about the accounts justified further investigation, not an unsupported conclusion that financial standing was absent.
2. Maintenance and repute. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner was entitled to regard the MOT history, failure to present vehicles for MOT, limited involvement of a transport manager and the Glastonbury prohibitions as serious concerns. However, errors concerning the maintenance investigation reports, the evidence of responses and the significance of the prohibitions cumulatively made the findings on maintenance, breach of undertakings and loss of good repute wrong.
3. Operating entity and drivers. Section 81(1)(b)(ii) of the Act does not necessarily prohibit the use of self-employed drivers. The question is who the driver works for, requiring evidence about the contractual and operational arrangements. Company structures, shared drivers and vehicles, and financial arrangements may bear on compliance, financial standing or repute, but require proper investigation and reasons.
4. Procedural fairness. The appellants were not given clear notice that company structures, driver engagement and related financial arrangements would be central issues. A Traffic Commissioner must identify the issues in the calling-in letter and provide a fair opportunity to address the allegations, law and evidence. The matter was remitted to a different Traffic Commissioner for a fresh calling-in letter and reconvened public inquiry. The stay was continued pending fresh decisions.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 11 September 2023 allowed; revocation decisions quashed and matter remitted to a different Traffic Commissioner for rehearing after clear calling-in letters and a reconvened public inquiry.