Grounds of appeal
Grounds of appeal
In writing, Mr Hazell argues that the Traffic Commissioner’s finding that he/Carmel Coaches Ltd lacked good repute was flawed. The Commissioner misdirected himself in law because he failed to appreciate that an individual can only be found to lack good repute on account of relevant criminal convictions. At the hearing of this appeal, Mr Hazell further argued that the present application for an operator’s licence was dealt with unfairly because no one told him what he needs to demonstrate in order to establish good repute. He made inquiries with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) but they rebuffed him, saying that they could not advise applicants. However, in response to a question asked by the Upper Tribunal, Mr Hazell accepted that his attention had been drawn to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No.3 (Transport Managers).
At the hearing of this appeal, Mr Hazell argued that it was simply wrong for the Commissioner to have found that he lacked good repute given his many years of experience in running a PSV business during which he had an excellent reputation with staff, customers and suppliers. At times, Mr Hazell also argued that previous Traffic Commissioner regulatory decisions in respect of himself and Carmel Coaches Ltd were flawed but, as the panel reminded Mr Hazell at the hearing, the only decision before the Upper Tribunal in the present proceedings was the Commissioner’s refusal to grant the operator’s licence applied for on 18 October 2023.
At the hearing, Mr Hazell also argued that the Commissioner failed to have proper regard to a number of references provided on the day of the public inquiry, which supported his case that he / Carmel Coaches Ltd were of good repute. The references were not contained within the Upper Tribunal bundle, so copies were taken at the hearing.
Mr Hazell argues that the Commissioner wrongly found that he lacked professional competence. Since he has re-taken, and passed, the necessary transport managers’ examination, the Commissioner was bound to find that he had professional competence as a transport manager.
- 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)