[2024] UKUT 419 (AAC)

The Appellant, DMD Cardiff Limited is a company incorporated on 28 October 2019 of which Steven Lyle (“Mr Lyle”) has at all material times been the sole director and person with significant control. The Appellant is, for all relevant intents and purposes, Mr Lyle in corporate form.

The Appellant held a standard public service vehicle operator’s licence in respect of its passenger transport business.

On 31 January 2024, its Transport Manager gave notice to the Appellant that he would resign as from 29 February 2024. The following day, he gave notice to the Commissioner.

On 1 March 2024, the Commissioner gave notice to the Appellant that she considered that the Appellant no longer satisfied the requirements of section 14ZA and that the Appellant should appoint a new transport manager or seek a period of grace to do so within 14 days.

The Appellant responded on 8 March 2024 seeking a period of grace which, on 19 March 2024, the Commissioner granted to 1 June 2024. That grant made clear that, by that date, the Appellant would have to have satisfied the Commissioner that a suitable transport manager had been appointed and that the licence would be revoked if they failed to do so.

On 17 April 2024, the Appellant applied to the Commissioner for confirmation that Christopher Bowden met all requirements as External Transport Manager.

On 16 May 2024, the Commissioner wrote to the Appellant informing them that the application was incomplete, and that further specified information had to be provided by 30 May 2024 failing which the operator’s licence would be revoked. The following information was identified as missing: (i) a signed transport manager declaration, (ii) the new transport manager’s full original Certificate of Competence in Passenger Transport, (iii) details of the arrangements between the Appellant and the new transport manager, and (iv) a detailed account from the new transport manager as to how they would meet the requirements of the role given their other responsibilities that might impact on their availability. The letter made clear that, if a request for a further extension of time was to be made, it had to be “submitted well in advance” and include further information about the steps taken to provide the further information and when it might be provided. It also made clear that any period of grace could not be more than six months in total. The Appellant did not respond to that letter.

On 13 June 2024, the Commissioner revoked the Appellant’s licence. It is against that revocation that the Appellant now appeals.

It is not clear whether the Commissioner has granted the Appellant a stay of the revocation of the licence. Mr Lyle told us that he received an email from the Commissioner’s Office confirming that the Appellant could continue its public service vehicle operations pending this appeal. However, that email was not produced at the hearing. Indeed, there is no evidence before us (other than Mr Lyle’s oral assertion) that the Commissioner granted any stay or other form of permission to continue public service vehicle operations pending this appeal. We return to that issue below (paragraph 21).