[2024] UKUT 292 (AAC)

We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments and dismiss this appeal. It was the Appellant’s responsibility to come to both public inquiry hearings properly prepared and the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to draw an adverse inference from the way in which the Appellant prepared for both hearings. The Appellant told us that his proposed transport manager retained the OTC bundle but, from our reading of the transcript of the second hearing, the transport manager was the same person as the ‘friend’ whom the Commissioner was told had retained the papers (see page 9 of the hearing transcript). Since the friend and the proposed transport manager were one and the same, the argument that the transport manager was at fault, rather than Mr Samoor, was therefore dealt with by the Commissioner. The Appellant argues that he has complied with all requirements imposed by Traffic Commissioners but that contradicts the present Commissioner’s findings, and the correctness of those findings is not seriously disputed. Finally, evidence about MOT pass rates, or vehicle maintenance, that was not before the Commissioner cannot demonstrate any error of fact or law in the Commissioner’s decision.

Mr Samoor promised, before us, that he would do whatever was required in order to secure an operator’s licence. However, an appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a Traffic Commissioner’s decision is not a fresh consideration of the regulatory issue that was before the Commissioner. For this reason, we cannot, in deciding this appeal, take into account commitments now given by Mr Samoor as to his future intentions.

Finally, we apologise for the delay in giving this decision. Initially, due to an administrative oversight this case was not marked on the Upper Tribunal’s case management system as ready for decision. And, subsequently, the judge was absent from duties while recovering from serious injuries sustained in an accident.