K Hough Contractors Limited, Re

Operators of goods vehicles must maintain effective compliance systems and remain responsible for drivers’ hours, tachograph records, maintenance, defect reporting and authorised operating-centre requirements. Those obligations apply even where the operator holds a restricted licence, operates only one vehicle, or faces financial and business difficulties. An operator’s explanations for non-compliance must be assessed against the evidence and may be rejected where the operator declines to attend or answer questions. An appeal will fail where the Traffic Commissioner’s decision to revoke the licence is not shown to be plainly wrong.

The operator held a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence for its groundwork business. Following vehicle examinations and investigations, it was called to a public inquiry concerning drivers’ hours, tachograph records, maintenance, maintenance records and use of an unauthorised operating centre.

The Traffic Commissioner adjourned the first inquiry but suspended the licence pending an application concerning a new operating centre. The operator did not attend the resumed inquiry. The Traffic Commissioner found the concerns made out and revoked the licence under section 26(1)(f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The operator appealed, relying on explanations concerning CPC requirements, drivers’ records, the identity of the driver and business difficulties.

1. Appeal dismissed. The operator’s grounds, individually and collectively, did not establish that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong.

2. The panel rejected the operator’s assertion that the absence of profit, or the restricted nature of the licence, removed the requirement for a driver to hold a Certificate of Professional Competence. The alleged misunderstanding did not provide a sufficient explanation, particularly where the operator had declined to attend and answer questions.

3. The operator was responsible for maintaining correct knowledge of the legal requirements concerning drivers’ hours and tachographs. Manual logbooks were not an adequate substitute for the required digital recording arrangements on the facts found.

4. The panel rejected the explanation that the reference to a sole driver resulted from a misunderstanding. The operator remained responsible for recording the hours of a driver operating its vehicle, even where that driver had his own digital card.

5. The evidence supported findings of absent compliance systems, inadequate maintenance records, no driver defect-reporting system, and operation from an unauthorised centre. The statutory grounds were therefore properly engaged.

6. Vehicle licensing rules serve public safety and fair competition. A high level of compliance is expected from all operators, including those experiencing difficult business conditions.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the West of England: operator’s licence revoked with effect from 2359 hours on 20 April 2024, following the decision dated 2 April 2024 and notified on 3 April 2024.