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 )
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);
“by continuing to insist on the good repute of Carmel Coaches since 21 September 2020, Mr Hazell appeared to downplay the relevance of his own past actions”;
he maintained the stance taken at previous public inquiries, namely “insisting that he had put safety first, despite previous factual findings to the contrary”;
he remained “reluctant to embrace change and had given no demonstration that he is a changed person”. While Mr Hazell denied downplaying past failures, he nevertheless maintained he had led a “very compliant if not boring lifestyle” and “thought it natural not to criticise himself”. Mr Hazell’s repeated references to a supposed ‘golden history’ of operating transport businesses had no basis in reality. Mr Hazell also said he was seeking, through the present application, to clear his name but the Commissioner considered that this was “not a proper use of the licensing system”;
the failings just mentioned were apparent from Mr Hazell’s written representations but “it was his attitude on the day of the Public Inquiry which informed my assessment”:
“21. It is true to say that the longer the hearing went on, the worse Mr Hazell made his position. Whilst saying that he was deeply sorry for what had happened in the past, he gave the distinct impression that the real cause of regret was the hardship which had been caused to his business. He told me at length about the responsibility he had felt to employees and customers but hesitated when it was put to him that it was his own actions which had been to blame. He continued to view it as bad luck. He referred to having a Green OCRS but that it was the school stop leading to an S Marked Prohibition, which had caused his problems. He failed to show much appreciation that he was responsible for the compliance failings which were subsequently reported, and which formed the basis of the decisions to which I refer above. He went further and suggested that the “the cause of my problems was basically a tragic accident.” He referred to that one event turning everything upside down but over which he had no control.”
- 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)