Sucha Driving Limited

On an appeal against revocation of a goods vehicle operator’s licence, the Upper Tribunal asks whether objective grounds require a different view from the Traffic Commissioner, or whether reason and law impel that conclusion. A decision is not plainly wrong merely because the operator failed to answer important correspondence. Where the Traffic Commissioner has given reasonable time to respond and the correspondence sets out an adequately coherent and rational case that statutory revocation conditions may be met, revocation may properly follow in the absence of a response.

The Traffic Commissioner revoked the appellant company’s goods vehicle operator’s licence under sections 26 and 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The correspondence identified concerns about financial standing, good repute and the transport manager requirement, and invited written representations or a request for a public inquiry.

The company appealed, asserting that it had not received earlier correspondence and could provide evidence of financial standing. It did not attend the Upper Tribunal hearing. The central issue was whether the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was plainly wrong or whether objective grounds required a different conclusion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal proceeded in the appellant’s absence because the appeal grounds and disclosed bundle were adequate, the appellant had been given an opportunity to address the OTC case file, and no good reason for non-attendance had been given.
2. The appellate task is to determine, on objective grounds, whether a different view from that taken by the Traffic Commissioner is the right one, or whether reason and the law impel the Upper Tribunal to take a different view: [2010] EWCA Civ 695.
3. An operator is expected to respond to important correspondence from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within the stated time or promptly explain why a full response cannot yet be made. Silence may lead to adverse conclusions which are difficult to overturn on appeal. The principles stated in Jason McNamara t/a JMC Transport and A.J. Curtis t/a Silver Wing Travel were materially applicable.
4. The OTC’s letter of 26 March 2025 set out an adequately coherent and rational case that one or more revocation conditions under sections 26(1) and 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 might be satisfied. The appellant had a reasonable period to respond or request a public inquiry but did neither.
5. In those circumstances, the Traffic Commissioner could not be said to have been plainly wrong in directing revocation after the deadline expired. The Upper Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal.

• Traffic Commissioner: On 13 May 2025, directed revocation of the appellant’s goods vehicle operator’s licence.
• Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber): Dismissed the appeal against that decision.