GBM Haulage Limited

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the Upper Tribunal must decide objectively whether a different view is required by reason and the law. A change in a company’s directors may be a material change in circumstances relevant to its operator’s licence and may also breach a licence condition requiring notification. A licence-holder remains responsible for compliance and cannot avoid the consequences of non-compliance by blaming its transport manager. A failure to allow the statutory period for representations does not necessarily invalidate a decision; its consequence depends on statutory purpose, the circumstances, and any prejudice or injustice.

The Traffic Commissioner revoked the appellant’s standard operator’s licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The revocation followed the appellant’s failure to update the vehicle online licensing system after appointing an additional director, despite repeated requests and notice that revocation was being considered.

The appellant accepted the underlying facts but attributed the failure to its transport manager. The Upper Tribunal considered whether the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was wrong, including whether allowing only 15 rather than 21 days for representations under section 27(3)(b) invalidated the decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal had to decide whether, on objective grounds, a different view from that of the Traffic Commissioner was required by reason and the law, applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695.

2. The appointment of an additional director was a material change in the appellant’s circumstances relevant to the grant of its licence. Section 26(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 therefore gave the Traffic Commissioner power to revoke the licence. The failure also provided an additional ground under section 26(1), because notification of changes in board composition was treated as a licence condition.

3. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to regard the repeated failure to respond to requests to update the licensing system as indicating that the appellant no longer possessed the fitness required for the licence. Responsibility rests with the licence-holder. The appellant could not transfer that responsibility to its transport manager, consistent with KA & Z Leonida t/a ETS, paragraph 4.

4. The Traffic Commissioner had been wrong to allow only 15 days, rather than 21 days, for representations under section 27(3)(b). That error did not invalidate the revocation. Applying A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 27, the consequence of non-compliance depended on statutory purpose and the facts, including prejudice or injustice. The appellant had not responded within the period given, its representations were heard on appeal, and the decision was independently supported under section 26.

• Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands Traffic Area: revoked the operator’s licence by decision letter dated 1 March 2024, effective from 14:18 hours that day.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal against the revocation.