Case No. UKUT-00148-(AAC)

73.We are satisfied that the TC erred in law in the ways described in Grounds 1, 2 and 5 and that these were all material errors that led to the decision to revoke being plainly wrong.74.We must then consider what is the appropriate remedy for the purposes of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the 1985 Act. We can make such order as we see fit, including remittal for a fresh hearing. After careful consideration we have decided not to remit this matter for a further PI. We understand the concerns that the TC had about the involvement of Mr Aujla in the Appellant, given his history, and the links with other companies (the grounds for the PI set out in the calling in letter). There were connected companies that were linked to the Appellant and there was a sharing of resources. It was appropriate for the companies to be investigated to check that they were operating in a lawful way, for example, that maintenance of vehicles and driver’s hours were clearly managed and did not evade regulation.75.However, the TC decided that the grounds set out in the calling in letter were not made out on the evidence and, but for these grounds, there would have been no PI. It would not be appropriate to remit the matter to a fresh tribunal based upon that calling in letter where it does not set out the grounds which the TC now relied upon. The grounds for revocation that were relied upon by the TC did not result from any independent examination or evidence pursued or presented by the DVSA and the Appellant has demonstrated that they do not have the merit that the TC considered that they did. 76.The Appellant’s operation is discrete – based upon a contract with Tarmac Holding Ltd. There was an issue from time to time that a driver would drive for another family company and vice versa – when RAM Logistics Ltd did not have work for that driver. This did not provide evidence that drivers were breaching the drivers’ hours rules and there was insufficient evidence of breaches because the matter was not investigated. The Appellant operator had sent in tachograph data – and had there been no tacho data then no complaints would have been raised by the TC. The Appellant nonetheless proved that it was substantially compliant. This is all the more so when there was insufficient evidence to prove that it was not compliant and its licence should be revoked.77.Our decision does not prevent the DVSA or office of the TC conducting a fresh investigation if they have concerns. The matter can always be returned to the office of the TC for a fresh calling in letter and PI on specified grounds and substantiated evidence if that becomes appropriate.