Paul Phillips, Re

An appeal against refusal of a restricted operator’s licence succeeds only where the Traffic Commissioner’s decision involved an error of law, a material mistake of fact, procedural unfairness, or was plainly wrong on the evidence. The Upper Tribunal assesses the decision on the material before the Traffic Commissioner. An applicant must satisfy the statutory requirements concerning vehicle maintenance, the suitability and availability of the operating centre, and sufficient financial resources. Later evidence cannot be admitted where the applicable statutory restriction excludes it.

The appellant appealed against the Traffic Commissioner’s refusal, dated 13 March 2025, of his application for a restricted operator’s licence for one vehicle. The proposed operating centre was the driveway of his residential property. The application raised concerns about access, manoeuvring, obstruction and the ability to conduct vehicle checks, as well as inadequate evidence of financial standing. The appellant relied before the Upper Tribunal on further bank statements and a possible parking facility at his maintenance provider. The central issues were whether the Traffic Commissioner had erred in law, made a material factual error, acted unfairly, or reached a plainly wrong decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Traffic Commissioner’s refusal of the restricted operator’s licence was upheld.
2. Under section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, an application must be refused if the applicant fails to satisfy any applicable requirement of section 13 C. Those requirements included satisfactory arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, an operating centre available and suitable for use, and arrangements not prejudiced by insufficient financial resources.
3. On the evidence before the Traffic Commissioner, the proposed residential operating centre was unsuitable. The larger vehicle would require reversing and manoeuvring in the road, risked obstructing the public pathway, and left inadequate space for daily walk-round checks. The financial documents also failed by a significant margin to demonstrate the required funds of £3,100.
4. The Upper Tribunal found no procedural deficiency or unfairness and no error of law. The Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly right on the evidence and was not plainly wrong in the sense required by Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695.
5. Further bank statements and evidence concerning a new parking space were not taken into account because paragraph 17(3) of Schedule 4 to the Transport Act 1985 excluded that new evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 13 March 2025 dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner for the South East and Metropolitan Area of England: application for a restricted operator’s licence refused.