[2023] UKUT 230 (AAC)

The Traffic Commissioner tackled this head-on in her decision, saying:

“Whilst this is the operator’s first public inquiry, that is not a barrier to revocation in serious cases. This is such a case. Mr Hassan has failed over a sustained period of time, up to and including the public inquiry to properly engage in quality monitoring and control of the transport operations. He did not find the time, knowledge or inclination to focus on road safety. Mr Hassan’s attention has been on commercial need. When the public inquiry call-in letter should have focused his attention, he has abdicated responsibility to a consultant. What Mr Hassan has done since 18 October 2022 is too little too late. When I pose the question, can I trust that Hassan moving forward (sic), then the answer must be “no”. This decision may or may not put the operator out of business, but if that happens, it does not go against my intention in revoking this licence. Revocation is appropriate and proportionate where there is a long-standing disregard for the underpinning principles of the operator licensing regime, namely road safety and fair competition.”

Although there may be something of a glitch in what she wrote, it is clear that in that passage, the Traffic Commissioner was in substance asking the question mandated by 2009/225 Priority Freight:

“In our view before answering the ‘Bryan Haulage question’ it will often be helpful to pose a preliminary question, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? If the evidence demonstrates that it is unlikely then that will, of course, tend to support a conclusion that the operator ought to be put out of business. If the evidence demonstrates that the operator is very likely to be compliant in the future then that conclusion may indicate that it is not a case where the operator ought to be put out of business. We recognise, of course, that promises are easily made, perhaps all the more so in response to the pressures of a Public Inquiry. What matters is whether those promises will be kept.”

That was the correct question to ask and we consider that the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to answer it as she did and we agree with her.