[2023] UKUT 250 (AAC)

We accepted the account given by Mr Sandhu in his submissions. However, we are satisfied that his assessment of the position is correct: he is the author of his own misfortunes. Having received assistance with the completion of his application form for a licence, it is clear that neither prior to the application being submitted or once the licence was granted, did he take any steps to acquire the requisite knowledge to effectively manage the operator’s licence (whether by reading the operator’s licence itself or otherwise). If he had done so, he would have been aware that an operator is required to have at least one vehicle specified on its licence; that he could/should have corresponded with the OTC setting out the difficulties the company was having as a result of COVID; that he should have contacted the OTC immediately following Mr Mandair’s resignation; that there was the possibility of being granted a period of grace; that he would have known about the VOL system and he would have known that any change of the correspondence address recorded on the licence must be notified to the OTC. In sending out three copies of the letter warning of revocation on 14^th February 2023, there was nothing more than the TC was reasonably required to do. Mr Sandhu was advised that his appeal would be dismissed and that he should now apply for a new licence, setting out the circumstances surrounding the revocation of this licence and demonstrating that he could be trusted to operate a compliant haulage operation in the future if the company were to be granted another licence. He has much to learn.

The appeal is dismissed.