Mohamed Abdulahi Omer v The Traffic Commissioner

On an appeal from a Traffic Commissioner, the Upper Tribunal must decide objectively whether a different view is required by reason and the law. A restricted public service vehicle licence cannot be granted unless the applicant demonstrates that operating such vehicles is not the applicant’s main occupation. Bare assertion is insufficient; clear documentary evidence may be required to establish the scale and income of the applicant’s other occupation. A Traffic Commissioner may refuse to offer a public inquiry where the applicant’s failure to provide material evidence is unreasonable under the Public Service Vehicles (Operators’ Licences) Regulations 1995. The appeal was dismissed because the decisions were not plainly wrong.

The appellant applied for a restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1995. The Traffic Commissioner refused the application under section 13(3)(b), finding that the appellant had not demonstrated that his taxi business was his main occupation rather than the proposed PSV operation.

The Traffic Commissioner also relied on regulation 6 of the Public Service Vehicles (Operators’ Licences) Regulations 1995, deciding that the appellant’s failure to provide requested evidence about his taxi business was unreasonable and that no public inquiry was required. The central issue was whether those decisions were plainly wrong on the evidence available at the time.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal’s decision was to dismiss the appeal.
2. On an appeal under section 50(1)(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1995, the Tribunal may determine matters of fact and law, but cannot consider circumstances that did not exist when the Traffic Commissioner made the decision. The correct task is to determine objectively whether a different view is required by reason and the law, applying Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 at [40].
3. Even accepting that the appellant had a longstanding taxi business, the evidence did not establish that it was his main occupation when compared with the proposed PSV business. The Traffic Commissioner was entitled to require documentary evidence of the taxi business’s scale and income, including accounts, tax returns, wage slips or bank statements. Bare assertion was insufficient, as explained and applied from Hukin t/a Red Fox Travel [2017] UKUT 0226 (AAC) at [24].
4. The appellant did not provide the requested evidence, despite being given an opportunity to do so. It was therefore not plainly wrong for the Traffic Commissioner to find that the main-occupation requirement in section 13(3)(b) was not met.
5. For the same reasons, the appellant’s failure to provide documentary evidence was unreasonable conduct in relation to the application. Regulation 6 consequently permitted refusal without offering an opportunity to state the case at a public inquiry.

• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): appeal against the Traffic Commissioner’s decision dismissed.
• Traffic Commissioner: application for a restricted PSV operator’s licence refused on 19 June 2025 under ref. PH2080691.