Case No. UKUT-6-(AAC)

8.The following is a summary of the background to this appeal taken from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner dated 22 December 2021 and other documentation within the bundle for the Traffic Commissioner and PI in this case.9.In 1998, the appellant held an operator’s licence which was called to PI. That licence was allowed to lapse before the inquiry was held. The appellant applied for, and was granted, a standard national licence in December 2003. A public inquiry was held in 2004, following which the appellant was issued with a warning in relation to his repute. A condition was attached to the licence preventing any increase in vehicle authorisation. 10.A further public inquiry was convened in April 2008 following more concerns having been raised in relation to maintenance of vehicles and the management of drivers’ hours in the appellant’s transport operation. The appellant was found to have repeatedly breached his licence undertakings, failed to cooperate with DVSA officers and to have lied to them and the Commissioner. He was found to have lost his repute. His licence was revoked and he was disqualified for a period of five years from holding an operator licence.11.In 2011, following another public inquiry, the former Traffic Commissioner for Scotland found that an operator, Jacqueline Mason and James Thomson t/a Access Coach Hire (PM1084146), was a front for the appellant enabling him to continue operating whilst disqualified. She also considered the appellant’s conduct as a vocational driver at that time and found him unfit to hold his vocational PCV driving entitlement on account of drivers’ hours infringements which he had committed. His vocational driving entitlement was suspended for four months. 12.In December 2014, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner considered an application made by the appellant for a restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner refused the application having concluded that the appellant did not have the required repute to be granted an operator’s licence. He also found that the appellant was not of appropriate financial standing and that the ‘main occupation’ criteria for a restricted licence in terms of section 13(3)(b)(ii) of the Act was not met. 13.Given the appellant’s history, the TC directed that his current application for a licence be considered at public inquiry. 14.The appellant lodged documents in relation to maintenance and financial standing in advance of the inquiry. He also submitted an email from a transport consultant who advised that he would assist him should the licence be granted.