Ashro Shipping Ltd

Where a refusal of a period of grace is integral to revocation of an operator’s licence, a Traffic Commissioner must give sufficient reasons for that refusal, even though there is no separate right of appeal against it. Relevant matters include the operator’s regulatory history and the evidence bearing on whether a replacement transport manager can be secured.

A notice of proposed revocation must accurately explain the right to a public inquiry. A description which reduces that inquiry to an opportunity to submit further evidence undermines statutory procedural protections and can render the resulting revocation unfair.

The operator’s standard licence was revoked after its designated transport manager ceased to act. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner had issued a Proposal to Revoke letter. The operator replied three days after the stated deadline, explaining that its director had been at sea and requesting a period of grace while it sought a replacement.

The Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence without explaining the refusal of a period of grace. The letter also described a public inquiry as an opportunity to provide further evidence. The operator appealed against the revocation direction. The central issues were whether the reasons were sufficient and whether the notice had fairly explained the inquiry right.

1. Appeal allowed. The revocation direction was made in error of law and was set aside under section 37(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
2. There is no freestanding appeal against a refusal to grant a period of grace. However, where that refusal is integral to the decision to revoke, sufficient reasons for revocation require an explanation of the refusal. Here the absence of a transport manager was the only stated regulatory concern and time was, on the operator’s case, the only obstacle to compliance. The request was not bound to fail merely because it was late.
3. The Commissioner also failed to take account of the absence of adverse regulatory history. That was a relevant consideration before revoking the licence of an operator which would thereby be put out of business. If the decisive concern was the failure to ensure continuous contactability, the reasons needed to explain why that justified revocation despite that history.
4. The Proposal to Revoke letter inaccurately and unduly restricted the stated purpose of an inquiry. Under paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 4 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995, an attendee may give evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses, and address the Commissioner generally. The restrictive description diluted the protections enacted by Parliament and made the ensuing decision unfair. The missed deadline for written representations did not cure that defect, particularly as the letter imposed no deadline for requesting an inquiry.
5. The licence was restored temporarily. Exercising the power under paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 3 to the Transport Act 1985, the Tribunal treated the flawed letter as a fresh section 27(2) notice and gave the operator 21 days to make representations and request a period of grace. A Traffic Commissioner may then determine what follows.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal in [2024] UKUT 425 (AAC), set aside the revocation direction, and made consequential directions.
• Traffic Commissioner, North East of England Traffic Area: on 2 July 2024 directed revocation of the operator’s standard licence for failure to meet the professional-competence requirement.