Decision of a Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the East of England Traffic Area, Re

A Traffic Commissioner cannot treat an operator’s failure to request a public inquiry as making revocation inevitable. Under section 27(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, duly made written representations must be considered before revocation.

Fairness may also require clarification where an operator appears not to understand that declining an inquiry will expose its licence to revocation. A Traffic Commissioner’s stay under section 29 must last only for the statutory period. The Commissioner has no power to impose a different, time-limited stay.

Direct Service Logistics UK Ltd held a standard national operator’s licence. A Deputy Traffic Commissioner revoked it after a vehicle was removed from the licence and no vehicle remained specified.

The Proposal to Revoke letter invited representations and stated that the licence would be revoked if no public inquiry was requested by the stated deadline. The operator made representations, sought to understand the vehicle’s removal, and initially declined an inquiry. The licence was revoked before the deadline expired. The operator appealed under section 37(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The Upper Tribunal considered whether the revocation process was unfair, whether the operator satisfied the effective and stable establishment requirement, the burden of proof, decision-making transparency, and the statutory duration of stays.

1. Appeal allowed. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s revocation decision involved errors of law and was set aside under section 37(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

2. The Proposal to Revoke letter anticipated an unlawful process. Its statement that revocation would follow automatically if no public inquiry was requested suggested that written representations could make no difference. That was inconsistent with section 27(3), which prohibits revocation without consideration of duly made representations.

3. The process was unfair in its particular circumstances. The operator’s correspondence showed that it wished to remain in business, had attempted to re-specify the vehicle, and did not appear to understand the consequence of declining an inquiry. Fairness required the operator to be reminded that declining an inquiry effectively conceded that revocation would follow. The Commissioner also acted before expiry of the deadline for requesting an inquiry, depriving the operator of the statutory opportunity to reflect and seek advice.

4. The Tribunal did not determine whether the operator satisfied the effective and stable establishment requirement. The evidence was insufficient to make a sound finding about access to the vehicle or the nature of the hiring arrangements.

5. Arguments relying on circumstances arising after the Commissioner’s decision were excluded by paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985. The Tribunal also rejected the suggestion that requests for regulatory information necessarily reversed the burden of proof.

6. Under section 29(2) and (3), a stay lasts until expiry of the appeal period, and, if an appeal is made, until its disposal. Neither a Traffic Commissioner nor the Upper Tribunal may grant a stay for a different period. The Tribunal’s power to set aside a stay direction did not authorise a different expiry date.

7. No reconsideration or public inquiry was ordered. A Traffic Commissioner remained free to take fresh regulatory action, including by issuing a fresh section 27(2) notice.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal allowed; the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 12 July 2023 revoking the operator’s licence was set aside.