Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 021 (AAC)

Fecha: 20-Nov-2024

The appellant’s case in brief

The appellant’s case in brief

30.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal were:

the TC paid insufficient regard to relevant matters which militated against revocation in this case (such as prior conduct, the reason why there was no transport manager, and conduct since the loss of the transport manager);

the decision to revoke was unlawful because the declared ground of revocation was not known to law; (this was because the TC’s letter of 22 December 2024 referred to a failure by the appellant itself to be professionally competent (tracking section 13A(3)(a)), rather than a failure to designate one or more Schedule 3 compliant transport managers (and so track s13A(3)(b)) (emphasis in italic and bold by us);

the decision to revoke was unlawful because there was no effective opportunity to make written representations because:

revocation took place on a different ground to that of which notice had been given (the reason given in the 22 December 2024 letter was the appellant’s own lack of professional competence (as opposed to the failure to designate suitable transport managers – see b. above));

ii.

the TC failed in his duty to seek written representations at the time of the decision to revoke (due to the long gap between the TC’s letter inviting representations as required under s27(3) (1 April 2023) and the making of the decision to revoke (over eight months later), natural justice required that the appellant be given an opportunity to comment on the reasons the efforts to rectify the situation had failed, and any culpability in that regard);

the TC was wrong to revoke without first granting the holder a further period of grace (up to the maximum nine months permitted by law);

it was unlawful to revoke without first holding a public inquiry (natural justice compelled the holding of a public inquiry in this case);

it was unlawful to revoke without giving sufficient reasons;

it was unlawful to revoke because it was a disproportionate to do so.

31.

The appellant submitted that if the appeal were allowed, the Upper Tribunal should simply quash the revocation direction (and make no further order); this was on the basis that

Mr Braim had been acting as the appellant’s transport manager since January 2024;

Mr Braim clearly met the criteria in Schedule 3;

Mr Braim’s application (to be appointed as a transport manager for the appellant) has been pending since April (2024); and

the appellant’s good compliance record has continued.