24Y Logistics Limited, Re

A Traffic Commissioner considering revocation of a standard operator’s licence must address a valid request for a period of grace. Failure to decide that request may constitute procedural irregularity and an error of law where it could affect the outcome or fairness of the process. Procedural fairness may also require reasonable steps to communicate with an operator which has requested a period of grace, particularly where an important follow-up communication receives no response. On appeal, the Upper Tribunal may set aside the revocation and make an order restoring the position sufficiently to allow the Traffic Commissioner to determine the request lawfully.

The operator’s transport manager retired shortly before the Traffic Commissioner’s Office issued a proposal to revoke the operator’s standard licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The operator emailed to say that it was seeking a replacement and requested a short period of grace. The Office sought further information but did not address the request, and the Traffic Commissioner later revoked the licence without deciding whether a period of grace should be granted.

The operator appealed. The central issues were whether the email constituted a valid request for a period of grace, whether the failure to determine it was procedurally unfair, and what order should follow.

1. Appeal allowed. The revocation direction was set aside under section 37(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

2. The operator’s email was a valid request for a period of grace, even though it did not specify the precise period sought. The Traffic Commissioner’s Office understood it as such. The Traffic Commissioner nevertheless failed to decide whether a period of grace should be granted. That failure was procedurally unfair and amounted to procedural irregularity.

3. The request was not bound to fail. The follow-up email sought only limited information about recruitment efforts and did not address the period-of-grace request or state that the information already provided was inadequate. The Traffic Commissioner therefore could not lawfully revoke the licence without dealing with the request.

4. It was additionally procedurally irregular for the Office to communicate the follow-up request only by email, and to fail to follow up the absence of a response, in circumstances where the principal notices had also been sent by recorded delivery and the Office knew that a period-of-grace request had been made.

5. The Upper Tribunal could not itself determine the section 27 issue. The statutory decision was for the Traffic Commissioner. The Tribunal therefore ordered that the proposal-to-revoke letter be treated as a fresh notice under section 27(2), with a new 21-day period for written representations and a fresh request for a period of grace or a public inquiry. The licence was restored for that period, subject to any later lawful decision by the Traffic Commissioner.

• Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands Traffic Area: On 3 July 2024, directed revocation of the operator’s licence.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Allowed the appeal, set aside the revocation direction, and ordered a fresh period for representations under section 27(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.