Bell Transport & Anor v Head of the Transport Regulation Unit

Revocation of an operator’s licence and loss of good repute are distinct decisions. A failure to engage with regulatory correspondence may justify revocation, but a finding that an operator has lost good repute must address the evidence relevant to the operator’s fitness to hold a licence and the proportionality of the resulting sanction. The burden of proving the relevant facts lies on the regulator. Where the evidence does not establish a false statement, that ground must fall away. A dormant licence may properly be revoked, yet the operator may retain good repute where the conduct, viewed in context, does not justify that additional consequence.

Two appeals concerned decisions of the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit to revoke goods vehicle operator’s licences held by Robert Bell, as sole trader, and by Bell Transport, a partnership in which he was a partner.

The sole trader licence had been dormant and the appellant had failed to respond to correspondence requesting surrender of the licence following a change of business entity. The Head of the TRU revoked the licence and found that Mr Bell no longer satisfied the good-repute requirement. The partnership’s licence was then revoked because that finding affected its good repute.

The Upper Tribunal extended time and admitted Mr Bell’s late appeal. The central issues were whether revocation was justified, whether the evidence established a false statement or loss of good repute, and whether the partnership’s revocation could stand.

1. Robert Bell’s appeal. The Tribunal upheld the substantive revocation of the sole trader licence. Mr Bell had adopted an ambivalent and indifferent attitude towards regulatory requirements, failed to respond after being warned of the consequences, and accepted that revocation was justified.
2. The burden of proof remained on the Respondent. There was no evidence corroborating the allegation that Mr Bell had made or procured a false statement when the partnership application stated that the sole trader licence would be surrendered. That ground therefore fell away.
3. The finding that Mr Bell had lost good repute was plainly wrong. The Head of the TRU had failed to consider the positive evidence, including the absence of convictions, road-safety concerns, unfair-competition concerns or adverse regulatory history. More importantly, the decision failed to consider proportionality.
4. Applying Crompton (T/a David Crompton Haulage) v Department of Transport North Western Area [2003] EWCA Civ 64, there must be a proportionate relationship between a finding of loss of repute and the inevitable consequence of revocation. Revocation of the dormant licence was sufficient to address the omissions. Loss of repute was a wholly disproportionate additional consequence.
5. Bell Transport’s appeal. The partnership’s revocation rested solely on the finding that Mr Bell had lost good repute. Once that finding was held plainly wrong, the basis for revoking the partnership licence fell away. The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal was also satisfied from Mr Peter Bell’s evidence that no additional grounds existed for revocation.

• Head of the Transport Regulation Unit: revoked Robert Bell’s sole trader licence on 6 September 2021 and Bell Transport’s partnership licence on 29 September 2021.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): extended time and admitted Mr Bell’s late appeal, upheld the sole trader licence revocation but removed the finding of loss of good repute, and allowed the partnership’s appeal.