[2024] UKUT 312 (AAC)

In summary, we have determined that the PO’s conclusions that the Appellant had lost his repute as an operator and as a transport manager, that he was disqualified from acting as a transport manager indefinitely, that his operator’s licence was revoked and that disqualification as an operator was necessary for a 12-month period were disproportionate.

We have here is no doubt that there is a poor history here, involving a number MSIs, the non-notification by the Appellant to the Department of these infringements, a VSI, other offences and the unsatisfactory outcome unsatisfactory outcome of the DVA compliance audit.

The Department has argued that when alerted to these matters and the initial PTR correspondence, the Appellant was slow to react. Against that, the Appellant’s representative requested a PI and it took some time for this to be arranged. The Appellant has employed a transport consultant, had booked to attend a transport manager’s course and there is evidence that the operation has improved. He accepts that his operation is unusual and that he should have applied for an operator’s licence in England. He has had a serious accident. The examiner at the compliance audit refused to accept required documentation on a ‘pen’ or ‘fire’ stick but this has not been accepted. Subsequently, the documentation was provided to the Department. He now has only one vehicle and appears to be content with that limited operation. He has, in our view, supplied sufficient evidence that he satisfied the financial standing requirement. He has been without an operator’s licence since 31 May 2023 and, accordingly, the 12-month period of disqualification from holding or applying for a licence set out in the PO’s decision has been served.

We have concluded that a more appropriate disposal is appropriate, and we set that out below.