RW Gent Ltd

Where an operator agrees to receive regulatory correspondence electronically through the Vehicle Operator Licensing system, notification through that system is effective unless the agreement is revoked. The operator remains responsible for accessing correctly issued notifications. A later hard-copy letter does not invalidate the process merely because it arrives after the response deadline, where the electronic notification was properly issued and not accessed. The circumstances may nevertheless raise an operational issue for the regulator if the later postal procedure routinely makes compliance impossible.

RW Gent Ltd appealed against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 14 July 2023, communicated on 17 July 2023, revoking its operator’s licence. The dispute arose after the operator’s transport manager was removed from the Vehicle Operator Licensing system and an application was made to reinstate him. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner sought further information about how he would perform his duties alongside other work.

The operator argued that it had experienced difficulties accessing the system and had asked to receive correspondence by post. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the electronic notifications were effective and whether the procedure had been unfair because a postal copy of the final request arrived after the deadline.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s revocation of the operator’s licence stood.
2. The operator had agreed to receive electronic notification through the Vehicle Operator Licensing system. On the evidence, that agreement had not been revoked. The fact that some other correspondence was sent by post or personal email did not establish a different agreement.
3. The system correctly sent email alerts notifying the registered user that letters had been uploaded. The notifications were not opened. The Tribunal rejected the explanations concerning hacking, access difficulties and the removal and attempted reinstatement of the transport manager.
4. The relevant requests for information were therefore properly issued through the system. The operator could have accessed and answered them. Its failure to do so made it the author of its own misfortune.
5. The later generation and posting of a hard copy did not alter the position. The fact that the hard copy arrived after the deadline did not make the procedure unfair, because the operator had accepted electronic notification and the electronic correspondence had been correctly issued but not accessed.
6. The Tribunal observed that sending a later hard copy by second-class post, when the deadline had already expired, appeared largely futile and was an operational matter which the Office of the Traffic Commissioner might review. The operator would have to apply for a new licence if it wished to resume operating.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision dismissed.
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: operator’s licence revoked on 14 July 2023, with the decision communicated on 17 July 2023.