Samoor Services Ltd

An appeal against a Traffic Commissioner’s licensing decision is not a fresh determination of the regulatory question. The Upper Tribunal asks whether the decision involved a relevant error of law or fact. It cannot take account of new evidence, subsequent improvements or commitments about future compliance where those matters were not before the Commissioner. An applicant is responsible for attending a public inquiry properly prepared, and the Commissioner may draw adverse inferences from inadequate preparation and inconsistent explanations. Where the statutory licensing requirements are not satisfied, the application must be refused.

Samoor Services Ltd appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal, on 9 June 2023, of its application for a restricted operator’s licence. The company’s sole director was Mr Samoor, whose earlier operator’s licence had been revoked following findings of serious non-compliance. The Commissioner was not satisfied that the requirements of sections 13 B, 13 C and 13 D of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 were met.

The appeal challenged findings concerning preparation for public inquiry hearings, credibility, compliance arrangements, vehicle maintenance and financial resources. The central issue was whether those findings disclosed an error of law or fact warranting appellate intervention.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal was not persuaded that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision involved a relevant error of law or fact.
2. The Appellant was responsible for attending both public inquiry hearings properly prepared. The Commissioner was entitled to draw an adverse inference from the repeated failure to bring the case papers and from the changing explanations about who had retained them. The explanation that the proposed transport manager, rather than Mr Samoor, was responsible did not undermine the Commissioner’s reasoning because the proposed transport manager was the same person described as the friend who had retained the papers.
3. The Appellant’s general assertion that it had complied with all requirements contradicted the Commissioner’s findings, which were not seriously disputed. Evidence about MOT pass rates or vehicle maintenance that had not been before the Commissioner could not establish an error of fact or law in her decision.
4. An appeal to the Upper Tribunal is not a fresh consideration of the regulatory issue determined by the Traffic Commissioner. The Tribunal therefore could not take account of Mr Samoor’s new promises to comply with licence conditions or his future intentions.
5. Under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the Commissioner had to consider the prescribed requirements for a restricted operator’s licence and had to refuse the application if any requirement taken into consideration was not satisfied. The refusal was therefore upheld.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 9 June 2023; appeal dismissed.