Edinburgh Coach Lines Ltd, Re

Revocation of a standard public service vehicle operator’s licence is a serious and potentially business-ending sanction. Even where professional competence is mandatory, the decision-maker must consider whether revocation is proportionate and whether fairness requires a public inquiry.

Where an established operator is making a genuine, though imperfect, attempt to appoint a transport manager, with no evident road-safety risk or wider misconduct, the Traffic Commissioner should pause before revoking the licence. The question is whether the conduct requires the operator to be put out of business. A single-request-letter procedure is not unfair in every case, but its application may be plainly wrong in particular circumstances.

Edinburgh Coach Lines Ltd appealed against the decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area dated 15 October 2024. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner had refused the company’s application to designate a replacement transport manager and revoked its standard operator’s licence without holding a public inquiry.

The company had attempted to complete the online nomination process but failed to provide all requested information. The Upper Tribunal admitted factual fresh evidence concerning those attempts and the procedure used by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. The central issues were whether the revocation was plainly wrong and whether fairness and proportionality required a public inquiry.

1. Appeal allowed. The decision revoking the operator’s licence was set aside. The case was remitted to the Traffic Commissioner for a public inquiry, although the matter might be resolved before the inquiry.
2. The Upper Tribunal applied the appellate approach in Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695. The appellant had to show objective grounds demonstrating that the decision was wrong, rather than merely establish that another view was preferable.
3. The factual evidence was admitted under the principles in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, as applied in Thames Materials (2002/40). The evidence was admissible, potentially important, apparently credible, and could not fairly have been obtained for use at a public inquiry because no inquiry had been held.
4. Under sections 14 ZA and 17 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, professional competence was a mandatory licensing requirement. That did not remove the need to consider proportionality. Revocation had to be proportionate to the conduct involved, and the operator should have a fair opportunity to correct the position where realistically possible.
5. Following Crompton t/a David Crompton Haulage v Department of Transport North Western Traffic Area [2003] RTR 34 and Bryan Haulage No 2 (2002/217), the relevant question was whether the conduct was such that the operator ought to be put out of business. The operator’s failures were modest. It was making a genuine attempt to appoint a transport manager, had a good and longstanding record, and there appeared to be no road-safety risk.
6. Applying Atbus Ltd [2019] UKUT 0032 (AAC), fairness dictated that a public inquiry ought to have been held. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner had proceeded directly to revocation without addressing proportionality. That was plainly wrong. The description of there having been no response was also incomplete, because information had been uploaded to the online system. That should have prompted further inquiry.
7. The Tribunal did not rule that the single-request-letter procedure was unfair in every case. Its application in this case produced an erroneous and unfair result.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Edinburgh Coach Lines Ltd, Re [2025] UKUT 146 (AAC) allowed the appeal, set aside the revocation decision, and remitted the case for a public inquiry.
• Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish Traffic Area: on 15 October 2024 refused the application to designate the replacement transport manager and revoked the operator’s standard licence.