RT International Transport Limited, Re

A traffic commissioner may revoke an operator’s licence for failure to rectify a professional-competence defect within a period of grace only where the operator has failed to comply with a requirement actually imposed by the applicable rules or notice. Where a compliant transport-manager nomination has been uploaded through the prescribed digital system, revocation cannot be justified by an additional requirement to post a hard copy bearing a wet signature unless that requirement was clearly communicated. The case should be remitted for consideration of any remaining regulatory issues.

The appellant held a standard international operator’s licence. After its transport manager resigned, it nominated a replacement and uploaded a TM1 form and supporting documents through the Vehicle Operator Licensing system. The Traffic Commissioner granted periods of grace but revoked the licence under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, treating the nomination as incomplete because a hard copy with a wet signature had not been posted. The appellant appealed. The central issue was whether posting the hard copy was a communicated and mandatory condition of compliance.

1. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Traffic Commissioner for further consideration.
2. Under sections 13A(3), 27(1)(a), 27(2) and 17(3)(A) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, a licence must be revoked where professional competence is not maintained and the position is not rectified within the applicable period of grace, unless further time is granted before expiry.
3. The relevant question was whether the appellant had failed to comply with a requirement actually imposed by the Traffic Commissioner’s notices or the applicable procedure. The correspondence did not direct the appellant to post a hard copy TM1 form in addition to uploading it. The appellant had uploaded the completed form and supporting material through the VOL system within the period of grace.
4. The appellant’s volunteered statement that it would post a hard copy did not convert that proposal into a mandatory condition. The notification to operators stated that changes to transport managers were to be made through the digital VOL process. It was therefore plainly wrong to revoke the licence solely because a wet-signature hard copy had not been received.
5. The revocation decision had not addressed outstanding issues concerning financial standing and the change of directors. Those matters remained for the Traffic Commissioner to consider, including whether a public inquiry was appropriate. The conclusion that the decision was plainly wrong was reached by applying Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): allowed the appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dated 13 March 2025 and remitted the matter for further consideration.
• Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England: revoked the operator’s licence under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, on the basis that the replacement transport-manager nomination remained incomplete.