New Village Logistics Ltd

A standard operator’s licence must be revoked where the operator no longer satisfies the statutory requirement to designate a transport manager and the procedural requirements for revocation have been met. The Traffic Commissioner has no discretion to preserve the licence in those circumstances.

An operator must keep the Traffic Commissioner informed of an effective correspondence address under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995. Failure to do so prevents the operator from impugning the validity of a revocation notice on the basis that it was not received. An appeal will fail where there is no error of law, mistake of fact, or procedural unfairness.

New Village Logistics Ltd appealed against a Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 16 May 2024 revoking its standard operator’s licence. The Commissioner had notified the company that it appeared to have no designated transport manager and invited written representations or a request for a public inquiry. The company did not respond.

On appeal, its director said that illness and treatment abroad had prevented him from dealing with communications and that he could now provide a transport manager. He sought an adjournment shortly before the hearing. The central issues were whether the appeal should proceed in the company’s absence and whether revocation was legally and procedurally valid.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal held that the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation decision involved neither an error of law nor a mistake of fact. The operator had no transport manager and therefore no longer met the relevant professional-competence requirement.
2. Under section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the Commissioner was required to revoke a standard licence once it appeared that the operator no longer satisfied that requirement. A temporary period of grace might have been available, but the company had not sought one.
3. The section 27(2) procedure was followed. The company was given written notice of the proposed revocation, the grounds, and the opportunity to make representations or seek a public inquiry. There was no procedural unfairness.
4. Any non-receipt of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner’s letter did not invalidate the notice. Regulation 25 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 required the licence-holder to notify an effective correspondence address when its previous address ceased to be effective. If the company did not receive the letter, that resulted from its own failure to comply with that duty.
5. The Tribunal also refused the late adjournment request and proceeded in the company’s absence. It had received proper notice, gave no good reason for non-attendance, had barely engaged with the proceedings, and an adjournment would probably only delay dismissal. The appeal was dismissed under section 37(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal dismissed; the Traffic Commissioner’s revocation decision of 16 May 2024 was upheld.
• Traffic Commissioner, West of England Traffic Area: revoked the company’s standard operator’s licence on 16 May 2024 for failure to meet the professional-competence requirement.