Kevin Roy Griggs, trading as KDP Skips and Waste, Re

A traffic commissioner may revoke a restricted operator’s licence where the operator has breached licence undertakings and post-licence convictions constitute a material change in circumstances. The restricted-licence fitness requirement is not a continuing equivalent of good repute, but it must be reassessed by reference to the statutory matters at the date of the inquiry.

The Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions may assist a discretionary revocation decision. They require attention to future compliance and proportionality, although the future-compliance question may be of limited assistance where the concern is an isolated but serious road-rage incident. Supervising a learner driver is “other work”, not a break, under the drivers’ hours regime.

The appellant held a restricted goods-vehicle operator’s licence. Following a public inquiry, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence and disqualified him from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for 12 months.

The decision followed convictions arising from a serious road-rage incident, failure to notify convictions, and failures concerning tachograph records and drivers’ hours. The Traffic Commissioner found that the appellant had breached licence undertakings and that the convictions were a material change in his circumstances.

The appellant appealed against the revocation and disqualification. He contended that the Commissioner had overlooked positive compliance features, had wrongly applied the Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions, had denied him an opportunity to address disqualification, and had imposed a disproportionate sanction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal held that the appellant had not met the appellate test in Bradley Fold Travel Limited and Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695. The Traffic Commissioner was plainly entitled to find that the statutory grounds for revocation arose.

2. The appellant had breached his undertakings under Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 section 26(1)(f). A responsible operator should know that supervision of a learner driver is “other work”. It is not a break. The appellant’s failure to record that work properly and to take the required breaks therefore breached the drivers’ hours and tachograph undertaking.

3. The convictions also amounted to a material change in circumstances under section 26(1)(h). Although they were not notifiable convictions for the original application, they arose while the appellant was carrying on the vehicle-operating business and were directly connected with that activity. They could properly be considered when assessing fitness.

4. The Tribunal explained that fitness for a restricted licence is not simply a continuing good-repute requirement. The assessment must instead ask whether the statutory fitness test would be met if reapplied at the public inquiry, or whether there has been a material change in the circumstances relevant to the original grant. Fitness is nevertheless not a significantly lower hurdle than good repute.

5. The Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions could assist the discretionary decision. The former was not especially apt to assess an isolated risk of road rage rather than general regulatory compliance. However, the Commissioner had seen the evidence and was entitled to find an unacceptable risk of repetition in stressful circumstances. Given the exceptional seriousness of the conduct, revocation was a reasonable and proportionate response.

6. The representative had an opportunity to address disqualification and identified no additional material submission. The 12-month disqualification was not plainly wrong. Revocation of the vocational driving entitlement did not make the separate operator-licence decision unnecessary or disproportionate.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Appeal dismissed in [2024] UKUT 46 (AAC).
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the East of England Traffic Area: On 10 February 2023, revoked the restricted operator’s licence and imposed a 12-month disqualification.