![[2023] UKUT 210 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Upper Tribunal Hearing
Upper Tribunal Hearing
The grounds of appeal are at page 180. The grounds narrate that the previous licence had been revoked due to lack of financial details. Regarding the lack of documents on vehicle maintenance, the appellant had not produced any because they had not been operating vehicles and Mr Craig did not realise that blank sheets would have sufficed. He now understood, that he should have produced more documents for the inquiry but, he said, in his defence, he did not think having a maintenance contract in place for a vehicle he might never purchase was the correct thing to do. He could not show forward planning of maintenance, insurance et cetera until he purchased a vehicle. His thoughts were to satisfy the TC that he was an upstanding citizen and that going forward would adhere to all the rules if granted a licence. He attached documentation with the grounds of appeal. He stated that he had failed to convey to the DTC that he had read the rules on the government website about driver’s hours and was fully aware of them. He had asked the DTC to question him on this so that he could demonstrate his knowledge, but the DTC had declined. He submitted that the appellants were a family firm and required a restricted licence for transporting their own goods. They would be devastated if their lack of compliance or knowledge led to injury or death of another road user, and that was why they were committed to run their vehicles in a safe and responsible manner. They had no criminal convictions and were financially sound.
Submitted with the grounds of appeal was information downloaded from the government website on the responsibilities of HGV vehicle operators; key points of a good maintenance system, a pro forma safety inspection record from Malcolm Maintenance Services, HGV defect report form for drivers, TachPro trailer safety inspection and maintenance form, DVSA example weekly record sheet and sample VOR form. Mr Craig sought to have further documentation received at the Upper Tribunal hearing. The additional documentation submitted with the grounds of appeal and on the day of the Upper Tribunal hearing were received under reservation as to their admissibility.
Mr Craig expanded on his grounds of appeal before the Upper Tribunal.
He submitted that the DTC’s decision was unfair and disproportionate because the appellants had experience and an excellent past record with no DVSA or VOSA judgments against them. There had been no accidents or insurance claims since 1948. He said that at the 2020 PI the DVSA said they had no problem with the appellants running trucks but that they would have to pull their socks up. While he accepted that at the PI the proof of their knowledge might not have been there, their history should have demonstrated to the DTC that they knew what they were doing.
the DTC seemed to think that they wanted a licence for hire and reward, that was wrong; they only wanted a restricted licence to move their own goods.
the DTC failed to take account of the fact that the appellants were unable to secure a contract of maintenance because they had no vehicles. They had approached Volvo, Scania and DAF who had been unwilling to give them anything in writing. This was due to a lack of mechanics, he said. He said that he had read the letters sent to him by the OTC and what it had said about the documentation required. The letter that had been sent to them by the OTC in December 2022 did not apply to them as they were not running vehicles at that time and could not have provided what that letter asked for.
The DTC was biased against Mr Craig because of his young age of 45 years and not having done a refresher transport manager CPC course. At the hearing before the Upper Tribunal, Mr Craig explained that what he meant by “bias” was that the DTC had not attached sufficient weight to their good history and too much weight to the fact that they had had two problems with DVSA in 30 years. He had attached too much weight to the fact that Mr Craig had gained his CPC 30 years ago. A transport manager CPC was not required for a restricted licence. His mother also had a CPC and his wife had worked in transport and knew the rules and regulations. He had gone on a CPC driver refresher course in 2015. If he did not know something he would look it up. Most of it was just common sense. He stated that he educated himself every day by checking things online.
Although the DTC said Mr Craig was of good repute the DTC did not believe anything he said or even that he had an office.
the DTC misled him regarding appealing as he said that it would be quicker and cheaper to reapply than appeal. In fact, the appeal had cost him nothing and had been very quick.
Mr Craig said that The DTC told him that if he had downloaded blank forms from the internet he would have granted the licence but then had gone on to say there was more to it than that and mentioned the fact that he had no up to date CPC.
Mr Craig said that when they received the bundle for the appeal they realised the DTC had not believed they had a business or an office; that is why the appellants wanted to add some photographic evidence showing the farm, crops, animals, farming vehicles, farm buildings, farmland and the farm office.