Nyanza Express Transport and Training Ltd & Anor

A Traffic Commissioner must revoke a standard operator’s licence when a mandatory ground under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 is established. Suspension or curtailment is unavailable in those circumstances.

A transport manager’s disqualification must be proportionate. A failure to apply the statutory proportionality requirement expressly will not invalidate the decision where the period imposed was proportionate in the light of serious regulatory failings, including falsification of roller brake testing records.

Nyanza Express Transport and Training Ltd held a standard national operator’s licence, and Paul Mboya was its sole director and designated transport manager. Following an earlier public inquiry, the operator gave undertakings concerning vehicle inspections, roller brake testing and a systems audit.

A further investigation identified serious maintenance and record-keeping failures, breaches of the undertakings and falsified roller brake testing records. The Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence, disqualified the operator and Mr Mboya from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for one year, and disqualified Mr Mboya from acting as a transport manager for three years.

The appellants accepted most of the adverse findings but challenged revocation, the evidential process, the length of the transport-manager disqualification and the finding of falsification.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Once a mandatory ground for revocation under section 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 is made out, the Traffic Commissioner must revoke the operator’s licence. Suspension or curtailment is available only where the Commissioner acts solely under section 26. The presence of an additional section 26 ground does not alter that duty.

2. The appellants had been given a fair opportunity to submit documentary evidence before the public inquiry. The Commissioner was entitled to decide the case on the material before him. In any event, further maintenance evidence would not have altered the outcome, given the accepted shortcomings, breaches of undertakings, penalty notices and, most importantly, the falsification of roller brake test printouts.

3. Paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 3 requires consideration of whether a finding that a transport manager is no longer of good repute or professionally competent would constitute a disproportionate response. Since such a finding leads to disqualification under paragraph 16(2), the relevant question is whether the period of disqualification is disproportionate.

4. Although the Traffic Commissioner did not expressly refer to paragraph 16(1), the three-year disqualification was proportionate. It formed part of a regulatory scheme under which Mr Mboya could seek an operator’s licence after one year but could not act as the designated transport manager for at least a further two years. The failings went beyond disorganisation and included falsification intended to conceal deficiencies in roller brake testing. The period was consistent with Annex D to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10.

5. A designated transport manager must make themselves aware of the record-keeping requirements of the role. The Commissioner’s reasons were not inadequate for failing to address an argument that the requirements had not been explained, since that was a hopeless argument.

6. Presenting one vehicle’s roller brake testing records as records for another vehicle amounted to falsification. The Commissioner was entitled to make that finding.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): The appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was dismissed on 26 June 2024.
• Traffic Commissioner for the Western Traffic Area: On 24 January 2024, the operator’s licence was revoked; the operator and Mr Mboya were disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for one year; and Mr Mboya was disqualified from acting as a transport manager for three years.