Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2024] UKUT 353 (AAC)

Fecha: 10-Oct-2024

The appellant’s case

The appellant’s case

The appellant’s appeal form stated, under “grounds of appeal”, that the appellant had “handed in the changes” to the “transport officer”, but the “transport officer” claimed “it” was never received. It also mentioned a number of other mitigating factors.

At the hearing, it became clear that the appellant accepted the factual accuracy of what was said in the TC’s letter of 18 January 2024; in other words, the appellant accepted that

(a)

the appellant had not updated the VOL system to record the appointment of Mr Singh as a second director of the appellant;

(b)

the TC had contacted the appellant on a number of occasions prior to 18 January 2024, requesting that it do this; and

(c)

the appellant did not respond to the TC’s 18 January 2024, or perform the requested updating of the VOL system, prior to the revocation of its licence on 1 March 2024.

The appellant’s case was, in essence, that all this was the fault of its transport manager, which, the appellant’s representatives at the hearing (its directors) said,

(a)

had been asked by the appellant to respond to the TC’s 18 January 2024 letter, and

(b)

had told the appellant (via its directors) that he had so responded (even though, in actuality, he had not).