[2024] UKUT 268 (AAC)

The sole director of the Appellant company, Carmel Coaches Ltd, is Mr Anthony Hazell. The Traffic Commissioner’s decision describes a significant regulatory history associated with the Appellant and Mr Hazell:

6 June 2014 – following a public inquiry, a Traffic Commissioner revoked a standard international licence held by Carmel Coaches Ltd, which had authorised use of 40 vehicles;

31 December 2020 – following a public inquiry, a Traffic Commissioner revoked a standard international licence held by Carmel Coaches Ltd, which authorised use of 14 vehicles. In revoking the licence, the Commissioner found that “vehicles were not maintained in a fit and serviceable condition and had been the subject of prohibition notices” and “Mr Hazell appeared to mistake experience for expertise”. The Commissioner also found that Mr Hazell had lost his good repute as a transport manager, ordered him disqualified from acting as a transport manager and that, before making any new application to act as a designated transport manager upon the expiry of the period of disqualification, Mr Hazell was required to re-take the Transport Manager CPC examination;

13 October 2021 – following a public inquiry, a Traffic Commissioner refused Carmel Coaches Ltd’s application for a standard international licence authorising the use of 10 vehicles. The Commissioner’s reasons referred to Mr Hazell’s “repeated failure to acknowledge his previous shortcomings and lack of knowledge”;

15 July 2022, following a public inquiry, a Traffic Commissioner refused Mr Hazell’s application for a standard international licence authorising the use of three vehicles. In refusing the application, the Commissioner found that “Mr Hazell had been reluctant to embrace change or to acknowledge past shortcomings”.

gave a number of assurances about the time he would be able to devote to his responsibilities as transport manager and noted that he would have no staff to supervise. He added that, “my current application is for 1 vehicle whereas my previous licences were for 40 and 15 vehicles. This will mean a very much smaller business to manage and I will be outsourcing maintenance to an experienced and well established contractor of good repute rather than relying on my own staff";

stated that he had re-taken, and passed, the Transport Managers CPC examination, adding, “so I assume I am no longer disqualified”;

described attending numerous trade association meetings and training events, and observing a number of Traffic Commissioner public inquiries, in order to continue his professional development.

he seemed to think that good repute was established simply by demonstrating that he had no criminal convictions;