Autoworx Recovery Ltd

A Traffic Commissioner revoking a standard operator’s licence must give sufficient reasons for refusing a period of grace where that refusal is integral to the revocation decision. The reasons must explain why the request failed where the circumstances do not make refusal inevitable. Reliance on a weak or inadequately supported inference may be irrational. A notice explaining the right to request a public inquiry must accurately describe the procedural protections available at that inquiry. A description limited to providing further evidence may unlawfully discourage operators from exercising that right.

The appellant’s transport manager had resigned, apparently without the operator’s knowledge. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner issued a proposal-to-revoke letter and invited representations, including a request for a period of grace to appoint a replacement transport manager.

The operator sought a short extension and indicated that a replacement was imminent. The Traffic Commissioner nevertheless revoked the operator’s licence, referring to the operator’s response as unacceptable. The decision did not explain why the requested period of grace was refused. The appeal concerned whether the revocation decision was legally flawed by inadequate reasons, irrational reliance on missing financial information, and an inaccurate description of the right to request a public inquiry.

1. Appeal allowed. The revocation direction was set aside under section 37(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
2. Although there is no freestanding right of appeal against refusal of a period of grace, that refusal may be integral to a revocation decision. In such a case, the obligation to give sufficient reasons for revocation is not discharged unless the decision explains why the period of grace was refused. The circumstances must be such that refusal is either explained or plainly inevitable.
3. The Traffic Commissioner’s reasons were inadequate. The decision merely described the operator’s response as unacceptable without explaining why. The operator had identified a prospective replacement transport manager and sought only a short period. Its failure to provide information about the former transport manager did not obviously determine whether the proposed replacement was satisfactory.
4. Reliance on the failure to provide bank statements was irrational. The operator had said that the statements would be provided shortly, had not been asked whether electronic statements could be uploaded by telephone, and had arguably been asked for original documents. Those matters provided a very weak basis for concluding that the operator was merely delaying the inevitable.
5. The proposal-to-revoke letter also misstated the purpose of a public inquiry. Under paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 4 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995, an entitled person may give evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses, and address the Traffic Commissioner on the evidence and generally on the proceedings. Describing the inquiry merely as an opportunity to provide further evidence diluted those statutory protections and rendered the subsequent decision procedurally unfair.
6. The operator’s licence was restored for the time being. The proposal-to-revoke letter was treated as a notice under section 27(2) of the 1995 Act issued on the date of the Upper Tribunal’s decision, with 21 days for fresh representations and a fresh request for a period of grace.

• Traffic Commissioner for the Wales Traffic Area: on 6 September 2024 directed revocation of operator’s licence no. OH2039823.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal, set aside the revocation direction, restored the licence for the time being, and directed that the proposal-to-revoke letter operate as a fresh notice under section 27(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, subject to specified modifications.