Case No. UKUT-00095-(AAC)

1.The Appellant (Mr Paul Bamber) appeals the decision of the Traffic Commissioner (‘TC’) dated 7 September 2021 varying his Public Service Vehicle operator’s licence under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (‘the Act’). 2.In January 2021, as a result of moving house, the Appellant applied to change the operating centre for the licence to be his new residential address. Previously there were two operating centres authorised on the licence – his former residential address and the Whitby Sports and Social Club – because at that time the Appellant owned and operated two vehicles. He now operates using only one vehicle - a Mercedes Sprinter Minibus (with 6.9-metre-long wheelbase) for hire or reward. He provides a minibus service such as to drive clients and customers to and from sporting events and pick them up from Liverpool city centre.3.The TC’s decision varying the operator’s licence was contained in a letter dated 7 September 2021. The letter referred to the Appellant’s application to vary the operator’s licence which was granted in modified terms as per the TC’s decision:‘The best outcome here is to reduce the authority on the licence to one vehicle. The operator then only needs one operating centre and the Whitby social club is clearly the most suitable of the two centres currently available. The operator has conceded he still has access to that facility if needed.Clearly if in future he wishes to increase the authority on the licence, consideration can be given to the proposed operating centres at that time.As stated above, my concern must be suitability and safety and not matters such as convenience to the operator.’4.The amended licence was enclosed. It decreased the number of authorised operating centres to one, removing the Appellant’s former residential address and confirming the Whitby Sports and Social club as the only operating centre.5.The TC’s decision followed an earlier internal memo dated 25 August 2021 from within the Office of the TC (‘OTC’) which stated:‘This application has again been returned following the reply from the operator. Firstly I note the operator no longer has 2 vehicles in possession and has indicated he is willing to reduce the authorisation to 1 vehicle. The operator has also indicated that he still has the option to park at the social club, but it is not being used as he doesn’t have the second vehicle. The operator has stated that he does not want to park both vehicles at the social club as it is not cost effective. However he does not indicate it is not possible. But given the fact this is to reduce to 1 vehicle, the option to still have social club and park the vehicle at that location must be the obvious choice. I note the comments about the distance [from his home], but suitability must take preference. In addition, the operator has not indicated the possibility of having a banksman as recommend previously. I therefore recommend the licence is reduced as requested by the operator, and the operator is advised to use the social club as the sole operating centre.’