Tomsyl Ltd

Where refusal of a period of grace is an integral part of revoking an operator’s licence, the Traffic Commissioner must give sufficient reasons for refusing that period. The reasons must make clear whether the applicant’s evidence was accepted and, if not, why. If the evidence was accepted, the Commissioner must explain why it did not disclose reasonable prospects that the statutory requirement would be met during the requested period. A bare conclusion that there was no tangible evidence is inadequate where the applicant has provided evidence of active steps to rectify the position.

The appellant’s transport manager was removed, leaving the operator without a person satisfying the professional competence requirements. The Traffic Commissioner refused the appellant’s request for a six-month period of grace and revoked its standard operator’s licence under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995.

The appellant had explained its recruitment efforts and stated that two interviews had taken place. The Traffic Commissioner’s letter stated only that tangible evidence had not been provided. The central issue was whether the refusal of a period of grace, and the resulting revocation, was adequately reasoned.

The appeal was allowed and the revocation of the appellant’s operator’s licence was set aside.

1. The Upper Tribunal’s appellate task is to determine whether, on objective grounds, a different view from that of the Traffic Commissioner is the right one, or whether reason and the law impel a different view: [2010] EWCA Civ 695.
2. A period of grace may be granted to allow an operator to rectify non-compliance, but it requires evidence that granting it will be worthwhile and that there are reasonable prospects of a good outcome. The guidance in McKee (Operator) & McKee (Transport Manager) [2014] UKUT 0254 (AAC) concerned a case involving a complete absence of relevant financial evidence. It did not justify treating the present evidence as absent.
3. Where refusal of a period of grace is integral to licence revocation, sufficient reasons must be given for the refusal: Ashro Shipping Ltd [2024] UKUT 425 (AAC). The Commissioner’s statement that there was no tangible evidence did not reveal whether the appellant’s evidence was rejected, or why it was considered unpersuasive. Nor did it explain why, if the evidence was accepted, two interviews conducted within a month did not create reasonable prospects of appointing a transport manager during six months.
4. That lack of explanation was an error of law and the revocation therefore fell to be set aside. No further order was necessary, because the stay meant that setting aside the revocation continued the existing position.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal allowed and the revocation notified on 20 November 2024 set aside.
• Traffic Commissioner in the East of England Traffic Area: refused a period of grace and revoked the operator’s licence under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995.