[2024] UKUT 268 (AAC)

Mr Hazell appears to be under the impression that the Commissioner found that he lacked professional competence as a transport manager. That is perhaps understandable since the reasoning used by the Commissioner to express his conclusions (see paragraph 9 above) is somewhat compressed and, to a lay reader, might convey the misleading impression that Mr Hazell lacked professional competence as a transport manager. However, we are satisfied that the Commissioner did not find that, despite Mr Hazell holding the necessary qualification, he lacked professional competence as a transport manager. That would be inconsistent with the observation made by the Commissioner about the consequences for professional competence of the expiry of a period of disqualification from acting as a transport manager (see paragraph 7 above). We think that the Commissioner’s words are probably explained by the fact that a company, such as Carmel Coaches Ltd, cannot demonstrate professional competence by reference to a transport manager who is not of good repute. That is probably what the Commissioner intended to convey but inadvertently referred to Mr Hazell, rather than Carmel Coaches Ltd, as having failed to establish professional competence due to the deficiencies of its designated transport manager.

Alternatively, if the Commissioner mistakenly found that Mr Hazell lacked professional competence as a transport manager, that was an immaterial error. The Commissioner’s finding that Mr Hazell, as designated transport manager, failed to satisfy the good repute requirement meant that the Commissioner was bound to refuse Carmel Coaches Ltd’s application for a standard operator’s licence under the PPVA 1981.