Case No. UKUT-00320-(AAC)

66.Mr Clarke did urge us, if allowing the appeal, to make an order which would result in the granting of a licence. But he realistically accepted that remission was the likely outcome. We have concluded that is the appropriate course. There are issues to be considered, perhaps in particular as to whether the business practices which the TC clearly disapproved of really are something to be disapproved of; whether even if they are, they are relevant to repute when viewed in the context of likely compliance with the statutory regime; and as to the identity of the controlling mind of the applicant company (if there is any need to look at that here). There are further facts to be found. We remit for matters to be reconsidered at a PI and we would anticipate that both Mr Lewis and Mr Scott will, on this occasion, wish to give evidence to it on behalf of the applicant company. Any necessary findings can then be made in light of what will probably be a much fuller picture than was before the original TC. We think it appropriate, in this case (which accords with usual practice) that a different TC conducts the new PI and makes the fresh decision on remittal regarding this licence application.M Hemingway: Judge of the Upper TribunalD Rawsthorn: Member of the Upper TribunalK Pepperell: Member of the Upper TribunalAuthorised for issue on: 25 November 2022Amended under the slip rule on 28 November 2022 to make clear that the decision was taken by the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands Traffic Area.