Mark Jones

A Traffic Commissioner has no general discretion to refuse a request to terminate an operator’s licence. Under section 16(4) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, refusal is permitted only where the Commissioner is considering a direction under section 26 or 27.

Whether a section 26 direction concerning a restricted licence is under consideration is a question of fact. It may be established by the regulatory history, although section 26 requires no prior written notice. The Upper Tribunal has no freestanding statutory appeal against a refusal under section 16(4). It may nevertheless consider the refusal indirectly where the validity of an appealable revocation or disqualification decision depends upon the continued existence of the licence.

The appellant held a restricted goods-vehicle operator’s licence. After the Office of the Traffic Commissioner sought information about possible links with other entities and warned that regulatory action might follow, he requested termination of his licence. The Traffic Commissioner refused the request, revoked the licence under section 26(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, and indefinitely disqualified him under section 28.

He appealed against the refusal to accept the termination request, the revocation, and the disqualification. He did not attend either the public inquiry or the Upper Tribunal hearing. The central issue was whether the Commissioner could lawfully refuse termination because regulatory action was being considered when the request was made.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had proper notice of the hearing. It was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence, given his failure to engage and the weak merits of the appeal.

2. Section 37 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 confers no direct right of appeal against a refusal under section 16(4) to accept a request to terminate a licence. The Tribunal nevertheless considered that it may be able, on an appeal against an otherwise appealable regulatory decision, to treat an unlawful refusal as a nullity. If the only lawful response would have been to accept termination, a later revocation or disqualification dependent on the licence’s existence could also be a nullity. This view was expressly provisional because the Tribunal had received no legal submissions on the point.

3. Section 16(4) provides the sole statutory basis for refusing termination: the Commissioner must be considering a direction under section 26 or 27. For a restricted licence, whether a section 26 direction is under consideration is a factual question. Unlike section 27 for standard licences, section 26 does not require prior written notice.

4. On the evidence, the Commissioner was considering section 26 action when the appellant made his request. The July 2023 letter sought information and warned that regulatory action might follow if there were no response. The appellant did not respond by the stated deadline and there was no evidence of anything subsequently changing the Commissioner’s regulatory position. Section 16(4) therefore gave the Commissioner discretion to refuse termination, which she exercised lawfully and reasonably.

5. The remaining grounds did not establish an error of law or material mistake of fact in the revocation or disqualification decisions. The appellant had supplied no evidence supporting his asserted earlier transfer of the vehicles or responsibility for them. The Commissioner was entitled to rely on the compliance failures, lack of cooperation, and other adverse findings. The revocation and indefinite disqualification remained effective.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): dismissed the appeal from the Traffic Commissioner’s decisions of 1 March 2024.
• Traffic Commissioner, South Eastern Traffic Area: refused the request to terminate the restricted operator’s licence, revoked it, indefinitely disqualified the appellant from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence, and made an associated direction.