[2024] UKUT 46 (AAC)

We remind ourselves that the TC revoked Mr. Griggs’s operator’s licence on the grounds set out in s.26(1)(f) and (h). The first question for us is whether there was a plain error in the TC’s findings that those grounds were established and the power to revoke arose.

S.26(1)(f) relates to failure to comply with undertakings. We have set out in paragraph 31 above the undertakings which the TC found were broken. All those undertakings were set out immediately above Mr. Griggs’s signature on the application for the licence as well as being recorded on the licence itself. The TC was clearly well justified in finding that the undertakings were broken. Even if Mr. Griggs was unaware of the requirements relating to Slot 2, he ought as a responsible operator to have been aware of the relevant drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements. In particular, he ought to have appreciated that supervising a learner driver was “other work” and could not be equated with taking a break.

S.26(1)(h) relates to a material change in the circumstances of the licence-holder. The material change which the TC identified was the fact that Mr. Griggs had been convicted of a number of offences. Although those offences were not relevant convictions within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 and so would not have had to be declared on an application form, they were all committed while Mr. Griggs was in the course of carrying on his business and were the product of an incident directly related to that business. Further, the conviction for assault was a conviction of an offence which fell within the definition of “serious offence” in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3. In our view, particulars of offences committed in the course of carrying on a business consisting of or including relevant activities could properly be required and Mr. Griggs’s convictions constituted a material change in his circumstances for the purposes of s.26(1)(h). It would be surprising in the extreme if a traffic commissioner in assessing fitness for the purposes of s.13B were unable to take into account convictions for offences committed in the course of relevant activities which would be relevant to the fitness aspect of the good repute requirement.

It follows that in our view the TC was not plainly wrong in making those findings. Indeed, we conclude that he was plainly right. Realistically, the grounds of appeal do not include a challenge to those findings. Rather, they are in effect a challenge to the TC’s exercise of his discretion to revoke.

We deal with the grounds of appeal as follows.