Conclusions
Conclusions
Companies: good repute and professional competence
We shall begin our conclusions by summarising the PPVA 1981’s good repute and professional competence requirements as they apply on a company’s application for a standard operator’s licence:
the Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied that the company is of good repute and professionally competent (sections 14(1) and 14ZA(2) of PPVA 1981);
the Commissioner must be satisfied that the company has designated a transport manager who is of good repute and professionally competent (sections 14(1) and 14ZA(3));
in determining whether a company’s designated transport manager is of good repute, the Commissioner must have regard to all relevant evidence including information as to the manager’s previous conduct (paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 3 to the PPVA 1981);
the Commissioner must determine that the designated transport manager is not of good repute if he has certain criminal convictions (paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 3). The PPVA expressly provides that this does not prevent the Commissioner from determining that an individual is not of good repute for reasons other than criminal convictions (paragraph 1(9));
- Heading
- This appeal is dismissed
- it had not occurred to him that fitness to hold an operator’s licence is an essential element of good repute” (2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd )
- Legislative framework
- Grounds of appeal
- Conclusions
- a company satisfies the requirement of professional competence if its transport manager is both professionally competent and of good repute (paragraph 3). In other words, a company cannot satisfy the
- Commissioner’s good repute findings
- Professional competence
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 268 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)