Digaway Limited

An appellate tribunal may interfere with a traffic commissioner’s decision only where it is wrong. It is insufficient that another view of the facts is reasonably possible. The appellant must show objective grounds requiring the appellate tribunal to reach a different conclusion.

An operator’s licence holder must make effective arrangements for the management of licensed operations and for monitoring communications from the traffic commissioner. A sole director’s imprisonment does not excuse a failure to act on notices properly sent to the notified postal and email addresses. Where the holder provides no financial evidence required to show that vehicles can be maintained in a fit and serviceable condition, revocation for material change of circumstances may be justified.

Digaway Limited appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 27 December 2023 revoking its restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence under section 26(1)(h) of the Good Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

The company’s sole director was imprisoned in October 2023. No arrangements were made to manage the transport operations or to monitor correspondence sent to the company’s notified address and email account. The Commissioner received no financial information showing that the company could maintain its vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.

The central issue was whether the revocation decision was wrong on the material before the Commissioner.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal unanimously held that the Commissioner’s decision was not arguably wrong and, on the evidence before her, was right.

2. Under section 13D of the Good Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, a restricted licence requires adequate financial resources to ensure that vehicles can be maintained in a fit and serviceable condition. Under section 26(1)(h), a material change in circumstances relevant to the grant or variation of the licence may justify revocation.

3. The Tribunal applied the appellate approach explained in Bradley Fold Travel Limited v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695. The appellant had to establish more than that another view was possible. It had to show objective grounds requiring a different conclusion.

4. The sole director was responsible for ensuring that the licensed business was managed during his imprisonment and that communications from the Commissioner were monitored. The Commissioner’s notice was properly sent to the address supplied by the company. The director’s failure personally to see it did not undermine the revocation decision.

5. No financial information was supplied to the Commissioner, the Tribunal, or apparently Companies House. The Tribunal therefore rejected the challenge to revocation. If the company now satisfies the licensing criteria, its proper course is to make a fresh application to the Commissioner.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation decision: [2024] UKUT 420 (AAC).
• Traffic Commissioner for the Wales Traffic Area: revoked the appellant’s restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence on 27 December 2023 under section 26(1)(h) of the Good Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.