[2025] UKUT 062 (AAC)

The Appellants were involved in a public inquiry before a Deputy Transport Commissioner in 2019 called, at least in part, in response to reports of anti-social behaviour associated with a so-called ‘party bus’ service. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner did not take formal regulatory action, but his decision letter recounted Mr Bain’s initial refusal to alter the party bus service, as requested by the police, but that, after a preliminary inquiry hearing, he agreed to meet the police “to take action to deal with their concerns”. Following that meeting, Mr Bain agreed to make changes to the party bus service. The Commissioner’s decision letter recorded:

“…Having heard evidence…and as a result of the agreement…I have decided to issue a warning to Mr Bain. I wish to make it clear to Mr Bain that if he had not reached the agreement with Inspector Bruce I would have revoked his operator’s licence.

…There is no reason why the agreement that Mr Bain reached with the police could not have been reached earlier. The reason that agreement was not reached earlier appears to me to have been Mr Bain’s attitude.

…I am prepared to take Mr Bain at his word when he says that he has a genuine willingness to engage with Police and that there will not be any difficulties in his relationship with the Police in the future.

…I should make it clear to Mr Bain…that I consider good communication and co-operation between an operator and the police is an essential aspect of good repute…”.