Case No. UKUT-00147-(AAC)

22.We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the four minded to revoke letters were sent by the OTC to the Appellants on 29 October 2021 – one each for company and director - to each of the two addresses as were registered for them by first class and recorded delivery post. The OTC has proved that the letters were sent. 23.We are also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that they were received by the Appellants – the post was not returned and the Appellants accepted they received the later letters sent to the same addresses by the same method dated 23 November 2021. No evidence was given on behalf of the Appellants in writing or orally (including a lack of evidence from Mr Hopkins) to suggest that it was more likely than not that the letters were not received – they relied purely on Mr Jeffreys’ submissions. Mr Jeffreys did not have instructions about what had gone wrong but suggested that had the Appellants received the first letters, they would then have surrendered their licences voluntarily. 24.Mr Jeffreys revealed a third address during the hearing - 7 Parkfield, a business address – as being Mr Hopkin’s address at the relevant time of the letters of 29 October and 23 November 2021. He stated that Mr Hopkins no longer owns the maritime quarter address and the other address at Tonna was deserted. However, even if either Appellant had moved address, they had not informed the TC of this and no change of address had been registered with the OTC as required.25.We are therefore satisfied that the Appellants were properly notified of the minded to revoke letters and given sufficient notice to make representations and call for a public inquiry. To the extent that they had changed address this would only reveal that they failed to inform the OTC as they should have done – it was their responsibility. 26.At the hearing Mr Jeffreys also advised the Tribunal incorrectly that the company’s business had been sold however on making further enquiries he discovered that this was not correct as the sale had not yet been completed and he corrected the misstatement by an email sent after the hearing later that day. In addition, he confirmed that the Operators Licences and Discs were returned to the Traffic Commissioner on the 24th March 2022 on a voluntarily retirement basis.27.We are also satisfied that the grounds for revocation as set out in OTC’s letters are right – there is nothing to suggest the grounds for revocation are wrong in fact nor law and no evidence was lodged or submissions made by the Appellants to the contrary. There is no reason to interfere with the TC’s revocation decisions – there is nothing to suggest that the grounds for revocation are wrong on their own merits.28.The Upper Tribunal held off issuing this decision for 4 weeks following the hearing to allow time for Mr Jeffreys to ask the OTC to reconsider their revocation decisions, permit the voluntary surrender of the licences and withdraw the revocation. This he did by letter dated 28 April 2022. However, the OTC informed Mr Jeffreys in subsequent correspondence dated 5 May 2022 that it was not going to withdraw the revocation decisions now there was an appeal before the Tribunal. The OTC was entitled to deal with the matter in this way.