Veltrans Green Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport

An operator’s licence cannot be revoked under section 26(1)(h) merely because the Traffic Commissioner later changes view about an operating centre, where the operator’s circumstances have not changed. A procedural failure in granting the licence may instead engage the statutory review power. A proposal-to-revoke letter must clearly and adequately state the grounds relied on and, where relevant, explain the possibility of a period of grace. A response amounts to a request for a public inquiry only if, read in context, it indicates that the operator wishes to give further evidence or representations before the decision. General written explanations and proposed remedial steps are insufficient.

The Traffic Commissioner revoked the appellant’s standard national operator’s licence under sections 26(1)(b), (e) and (h), and section 27(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995. The proposed revocation concerned failures to cooperate with the DVSA, the suitability and availability of the operating centre, and the alleged absence of a stable and effective establishment.

The appellant argued that the operating centre had not become unsuitable through any change in its circumstances, that the proposal-to-revoke letter was defective, and that its written response should have been treated as a request for a public inquiry. The central issues were whether the statutory grounds were made out, whether the notice was adequate, and whether the response required an inquiry before revocation.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The revocation of the operator’s licence was set aside and the outstanding variation application was remitted to the Traffic Commissioner.
2. The Red Lion Truck Stop was not an available and suitable operating centre because there was no formal agreement guaranteeing designated parking for the authorised vehicles. However, the company had not caused or contributed to the original grant of the licence in those circumstances.
3. Section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995 requires a material change in circumstances relevant to the issue or variation of the licence. It does not extend to a Traffic Commissioner changing view about the suitability or availability of an operating centre where the operator’s circumstances have remained unchanged. The statutory review power in section 36 was capable of addressing the procedural failures in the original grant.
4. The proposal-to-revoke letter was defective. It did not clearly identify the basis of the alleged lack of a stable and effective establishment, and it wrongly described the company’s failure to cooperate with the DVSA as breach of a licence condition when no such condition was recorded. The letter should also have explained the possible period of grace under section 27(3A). The failure to give adequate reasons and a reasonable opportunity to regularise the position made the procedure unfair. The approach to statutory notice adequacy in Newbold v The Coal Authority [2013] EWCA Civ 584 was applied.
5. Whether a response requests a public inquiry depends on how a reasonable recipient would interpret it in its statutory context, applying All Saints Spring Park Parochial Church Council v Church Commissioners [2024] UKPC 23. A request for a hearing, interview or meeting to present further evidence may suffice. The appellant’s response, however, contained only written explanations and remedial proposals and did not request an inquiry or indicate that further evidence was to be adduced. Ground 4 therefore failed.
6. The company owed a positive duty to cooperate with the DVSA and the Traffic Commissioner, as recognised in T/2010/064 JWF (UK) Ltd. The failures were relevant to good repute but were not, on the evidence, breach of the stated licence condition.

1. Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal in part, set aside the revocation and remitted the outstanding variation application to the Traffic Commissioner.
2. Traffic Commissioner for the East of England: revoked the appellant’s standard national operator’s licence with effect from 1 November 2023.