Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2023] UKUT 210 (AAC)

Fecha: 22-Ago-2023

The PI and the decision of the DTC

The PI and the decision of the DTC

14.

The application was called to a Public Inquiry on 9 March 2023. The call up letter (Footnote: ⁴) stated:

The Traffic Commissioner has reviewed the application and remains to be satisfied that the partnership meets the requirements to hold a licence. It has therefore been decided to hold a Public Inquiry to discuss the areas of concern, and to give you the opportunity to demonstrate how the partnership meets the requirements.

Specifically, the TC wished to be satisfied that the partnership:

(a)

Was not unfit to hold a licence, because of relevant activities, or convictions;

(b)

Had satisfactory arrangements to comply with the law regarding drivers hours;

(c)

Had satisfactory arrangements to ensure that vehicles were not overloaded;

(d)

Had satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition;

(e)

…

(f)

….

(g)

Had sufficient financial resources to ensure that the vehicles can be maintained in a fit and serviceable condition (Footnote: ⁵).

15.

The call up letter informed the appellants of the evidence that would be considered at the PI. The evidence to be considered included the previous DVSA investigation:

On 3 September 2019 DVSA commenced an investigation to establish whether the operator was complying with the requirements regarding the use of tachographs, and in particular, the downloading of and analysing the raw data from the digital tachograph fitted to the vehicle operated by them. The investigation found several shortcomings in the company’s systems for complying with the driver’s hours rules and regulations. Following the investigation, a report was submitted to the Traffic Commissioner for consideration. The TE’s conclusion states the following:

Despite numerous efforts to arrange a meeting to ascertain if the operator had introduced the necessary systems after the check on 7 June 2019, it was not possible to arrange a meeting to carry out the necessary checks. A letter requesting the production of documentation to show that systems had been introduced was not responded to by the required date. Both the operator and the nominated transport manager, John Ross Craig, failed to respond to letters inviting them to interview. I have been unable to ascertain if the systems they have in place satisfy the undertakings on their licence when it was granted. As a consequence, it is considered that the operator is not complying with the Statement of Intent with regard to the undertaking submitted at the time of the application for the operator’s licence.

16.

The call up letter also referred to the findings and warning given by the TC in revoking the licence (referred to in paragraph 7 above). The letter went on to inform the appellants of what they should now do. This included the following:

Start to collect your own evidence to allow you to set out your case on the day. This might include at least the following documents:

Details of the proposed vehicle maintenance system, including:

•

sample safety inspection records;

•

the proposed daily defect reporting system;

•

the original maintenance contract;

•

Forward Planner (or photographic evidence thereof if large);

ii.

Details of how you will comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours including evidence of proposed systems for:

•

driver licence checks;

•

drivers’ hours infringement reports;

•

vehicle unit download reports…

•

evidence of continuous professional development of the responsible person;

•

evidence of a recruitment and disciplinary process for drivers and managers;…”