[2023] UKUT 230 (AAC)

The operator had not been at the specified operating centre since May 2019. The operator submits that an attempt was made to regularise the position in August 2020. A statutory notice appeared in the Enfield Independent for August 12, 2020. It is submitted that a fee was paid on August 19. The documentary evidence (p63) does not show the amount of the payment, that such a payment went through or that if it did, it related to the present operator rather than another similarly named company, which is known to have made an application around the same time. At p66 there is a copy of form GV81, appropriately completed to apply for a change of operating centre, but unsigned and undated. Mr Hassan had claimed in correspondence that a covering letter was sent to a named individual in around November 2019 together with the advertisement, but as the newspaper showing the advertisement bears its date of issue, Mr Hassan must have been in error on that point. In any event, no letter of application from the operator (of any date) can be produced, it is said because of a corrupt hard drive. There is no evidence that such an application was ever received at the office of the Traffic Commissioners.

On 31 August 2021 the operator telephoned a Ms Shepherd, a team leader in the Licensing Team, and was told that to regularise the position, the operator needed to lodge an urgent application and request an interim licence. Although Mr Hassan obtained access to the VOL system, no application was made and no other communication took place. The 2020 “application” was only referred to again after the letter in June 2022 proposing to revoke the licence.

We are doubtful as to the evidence said to show that a payment was made to DVSA in respect of the licence fee. It would be at first sight surprising if there was an unallocated payment received by the Traffic Commissioner’s Office and we should have expected some follow-up by them, had that been the case. Ultimately, though, whether such a payment was made is of limited importance. The Traffic Commissioner did not conclude there was not such a payment, but it is undisputed that the operating centre in use was not in fact authorised and her conclusion in relation to the weight to be given to that fact rested on the lack of any other evidence of an application, the failure to follow up the purported application for a prolonged period, and the failure to check the licence on VOL, which would have revealed there was no application under consideration.

We can see no error in her approach or conclusion on this point and she was justified in the finding she made for the purposes of paragraph (a) of s.26(1) and the weight she gave to it.