![[2024] UKUT 353 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
The appeal is dismissed
The appeal is dismissed.
Subject matter
Revocation of licence
Cases referred to
Bradley Fold Travel Ltd & anor v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695
KA & Z Leonida t/a ETS T/2014/24
A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 27
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The decision appealed against
The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal against a decision of the Traffic Commissioner (the “TC”) in a letter (the “decision letter”) dated 1 March 2024 revoking the appellant’s operating licence under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of
Operators) Act 1995 from 14:18 hours on 1 March 2024. (In what follows, (unless the context otherwise indicates) references to “sections” or “s” are to sections of that Act.)
The decision letter referred to the TC’s earlier letter to the appellant, of 18 January 2024, notifying the appellant that the TC was considering revoking its licence, and said that in the absence of a response by the appellant to that letter, its licence had been revoked.
The TC’s 18 January 2024 letter said that the TC had been informed that the appellant had changed directors with the addition of Shivdev Singh on 13 June 2023; and that the information had not been updated on the vehicle online licencing (“VOL”) system despite a previous letter (of 24 August 2023) and email (of 5 October 2023) to the appellant. The letter said that in view of this, the TC was considering making a direction under s26(1) to revoke the appellant’s licence on the following grounds:
that the appellant had contravened a condition attached to the licence (in failing to notify a “change in ownership”) (s26(1)(b))
that there had been a material change in any of the circumstances of the appellant that were relevant to issue of the licence (a change of director); (s26(1)(h)).
The letter also cited s27 as requiring a TC to direct that a standard licence be revoked if the licence-holder no longer satisfies one of the requirements of s13A (s27(1)(a)); the letter cited s13A(2)(b), requiring the applicant to be of good repute (per paragraphs 1-5 of Schedule 3; paragraph 1 refers to “fitness” to hold a licence as a relevant matter to repute); the letter said that the TC considered this requirement no longer to be satisfied. The letter cited s27(2), which requires that, before giving a s27(1) direction, the TC give the licence-holder written notice that the TC is considering giving such a direction; the letter said that the appellant was permitted to make written representations, by 2 February 2024 (i.e. 15 days after the date of the letter). The letter gave the appellant until the same date to request a public inquiry; it said that the appellant’s licence would be revoked if no such request was received by that date. The letter was marked as requiring “urgent attention”.