The facts
2.On 12 April 2019, the Appellant t/a MMB Haulage was issued with a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising the use of one vehicle and one trailer, under the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 (“the 2010 Act”). The operating centre was listed at Unit 12 Dennison Industrial Estate, Avondale Drive, Ballyclare, BT39 9EB. 3. On 16 February 2022, the Appellant contacted the DfI Central Licensing Office to ensure the address on his licence was correct, at which point it came to the DfI’s attention that no vehicle was specified on his licence. That same day, the Central Licensing Office wrote to the Appellant highlighting the fact that there had been no vehicle specified on the licence since it was granted. He was asked to confirm, by 2 March 2022, whether he was going to get access to a vehicle for use under his licence, as it is a legislative requirement for a licence holder to demonstrate that he has a formal arrangement for access to at least one vehicle at all times. He was warned that failure to respond could result in action being taken against his licence. On 20 February 2022, the Appellant wrote back to the DfI indicating that he had not utilised the licence since it was granted due to business decisions and the difficult times created by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he stated that he was intending to get a vehicle and use the licence thus he asked to retain it. 4. On 11 March 2022, the Central Licensing Office wrote back to the Appellant serving notice under s.26(1) of the 2010 Act, that the Department was considering revoking his licence under s.24(1) of the 2010 Act. This states that a licence holder must have an effective and stable establishment under s.12A(2)(a), but by failing to provide details of access to a vehicle under his licence, he was not meeting this requirement. He was given the opportunity to make written representations for consideration by the Department in respect of this issue by 1 April 2022, and he was offered the opportunity to request a Public Inquiry (“PI”) to offer evidence as to why the licence should not be revoked. This letter was emailed to the Appellant who replied by email on 12 March 2022 with a letter making representations. His letter again sought the retention of his licence, reiterating that it was a combination of business decisions and the difficulties caused during the COVID-19 pandemic which caused him not to have gained access to a vehicle. 5. On 4 April 2022, the Central Licensing Office wrote to the Appellant indicating that it had revoked his operator’s licence with immediate effect under s.24 of the 2010 Act. The reasons given for this decision were: the Appellant’s letters had acknowledged that he had not used his licence since it was granted; he had not provided any timeframe within which he planned to use the licence; there was no vehicle specified on his licence and there had never been one specified since it was granted; there was no period of grace requested in order to gain access to a vehicle and use the licence; and he had not requested a PI to give evidence to support his plea to retain his licence. Consequently, the DfI were of the opinion that he had failed to meet the establishment requirement which must be met in order to have an operator’s licence. He was not permitted to operate from 4 April 2022 and was provided with the details on how to appeal the decision if he disagreed with it. 6. On 26 April 2022, the Appellant requested a stay of the decision on the grounds that he had gone to a lot of effort to get the operator’s licence and due to circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic, he had not been able to use it, but if he was able to keep it, he could get access to a vehicle, use his licence and create employment. He highlighted that he had never abused his licence but simply had not used it. He indicated that he had applied to the Upper Tribunal that same day to appeal the decision. 7. On 29 April 2022, the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit (hereafter “the TRU”) refused the application for a stay on the basis that the Appellant had not met the establishment criteria for holding an operator’s licence and his chances of making a successful appeal were low. In making this decision, the Head of the Transport Regulation Unit (“the TRU”) stated that, “if Mr McBurney does wish to pursue a career in road freight transport he may wish to obtain a vehicle and reapply. I note the readiness he has been [sic] to communicate promptly with the Department and this is certainly a positive feature. Any application will be considered on its own merits” (paragraph 18 of the Head of the TRU’s written decision on the issue of a stay, at page 45 of the Appeal Bundle).