Kevin King, trading as Kevin King & Sons Transport, Re

An Upper Tribunal appeal from a traffic commissioner succeeds only where the appellant shows that the decision-making process or application of law requires a different view. A finding of fact will not be disturbed merely because another evaluation of the evidence is possible. In operator licensing cases, deliberate falsification of tachograph records, misleading licence applications, non-co-operation with an investigation and false evidence may justify findings of loss of good repute and professional competence. The Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions provide a structured proportionality assessment, but mandatory revocation follows once the statutory conditions are established. A traffic commissioner’s failure to discuss a minor additional ground will not invalidate the decision where it could not have affected the outcome.

Kevin King, trading as Kevin King & Sons Transport, and KD Plant Hire and Haulage Ltd appealed against decisions made by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England on 13 February 2023. The decisions revoked both operator licences, found that Mr King had lost good repute as an operator and transport manager, disqualified Mr King and Ms Wallace from holding or applying for an operator’s licence for 12 months, and disqualified Mr King from acting as a transport manager.

The appeal challenged findings that Mr King knowingly permitted another driver to use his digital driver card, pressured him to breach drivers’ hours rules, failed to co-operate with the DVSA, and deliberately concealed Mr King’s involvement in the Company’s licence application. The appellants also argued that the regulatory action was disproportionate and inadequately reasoned.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellants failed to satisfy the Bradley Fold test. The Upper Tribunal’s task was to review the material before the traffic commissioner and determine whether the reasoning and application of law required a different view. The tribunal would intervene only if the decision was plainly wrong or equivalent to Wednesbury unreasonableness (paras [50], [87]).
2. There was no procedural impropriety. The call-up materials identified Mr Day’s evidence that Mr King had provided his card and pressured him to use it. The change in Mr Day’s evidence as to whether Mr King or Ms Wallace physically gave him the card was a matter for assessment, not a breach of natural justice. The traffic commissioner had also explained that evidence from the driver proceedings could affect the operator licensing proceedings (paras [52]-[54]).
3. The findings of fact were reasonably open on the evidence. The traffic commissioner was entitled to prefer Mr Day’s evidence, to treat the changes in directorship as supporting an inference of concealment, and to regard the failure to attend three DVSA interviews as non-co-operation. The Upper Tribunal accepted that the evidence, considered as a whole, supported the conclusion that Mr King knew of and authorised the use of his card and placed commercial interests ahead of road safety (paras [57]-[66]).
4. The misleading licence application and attempts to give incomplete explanations to the traffic commissioner were also findings reasonably available. Any imprecision in separating the attempted deception of the OTC from the attempted deception of the inquiry did not undermine the overall credibility findings or the undisputed false or incomplete application (paras [67]-[72]).
5. The statutory framework made proportionality relevant to the loss of good repute of a transport manager, but the findings established grounds for mandatory revocation under s 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions ensured that revocation was proportionate. The 12-month disqualifications were the minimum possible in the circumstances. The minor reasoning defect concerning prohibitions under s 26 could not have affected the result (paras [73]-[86]).

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s decision dismissed.
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England: decisions dated 13 February 2023 revoked both licences and imposed findings and disqualifications concerning Mr King and Ms Wallace.