Olleco (An Unlimited Company), Re

Where a decision-maker fails to consider relevant evidence, the resulting decision involves an error of law. On an appeal concerning the refusal of an operator’s licence variation, the Upper Tribunal may set the decision aside and remit the application for reconsideration. The appeal may be decided without a hearing where that course is fair and just under the overriding objective, particularly where the decision-making defect is conceded and a hearing would serve no useful purpose.

Olleco, an unlimited company holding operator’s licences under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, appealed against a Traffic Commissioner’s refusal to vary its West Midlands licence. The proposed variation would increase the authorised vehicles from 12 to 14 and remove the authorised trailers. The Commissioner had concluded that the applicable financial standing requirement was not met.

After the appeal was lodged, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner identified that submitted bank statements had been processed incorrectly. Relevant evidence had not been considered, and the Commissioner invited remittal. The central issues were whether that failure amounted to an error of law and whether the Upper Tribunal should determine the application itself or remit it.

1. Appeal allowed. The Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 24 March 2025 was set aside because relevant evidence had not been taken into consideration. That failure constituted an error of law.
2. The appeal was properly determined by a judge sitting alone. The error was a legal decision-making issue that did not require specialist transport members, and convening a panel would cause delay.
3. The appeal was properly decided without a hearing under rule 34(1) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. The Tribunal was required to apply the overriding objective in rule 2, namely to deal with cases fairly and justly. In light of the concession that the process was flawed, a hearing would have wasted resources.
4. The application for variation was remitted to a Traffic Commissioner nominated by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. The Upper Tribunal did not determine the application itself because the judge was sitting without specialist transport members. In any event, successful appeals against refusals of operator’s licence applications were ordinarily remitted for reconsideration.
5. The order was subject to a one-week period during which the appellant could object to the manner in which the appeal had been decided. If written objections were received, the decision would have no effect and the matter would be referred for case-management directions.

• Traffic Commissioner, West Midlands Traffic Area: on 24 March 2025, refused the application to vary operator’s licence OD1144490 on the ground that the financial standing requirement was not satisfied.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal allowed; the Commissioner’s decision set aside and the variation application remitted for reconsideration.