![[2025] UKUT 073 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Heading
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Appeal No. UA-2024-000923-T
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER [2025] UKUT 073 (AAC)
(TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS)
On APPEAL from a DECISION of a TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER in the SOUTH EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA taken on 1 March 2024
Before: E Mitchell, Judge of the Upper Tribunal
S Booth, Specialist Member of the Upper Tribunal
I Luckett, Specialist Member of the Upper Tribunal
Appellant: Mark Jones
Commissioner’s ref: OK2024813
Date of Commissioner’s 1 March 2024
decision:
Heard at: Field House, Bream’s Buildings, central London on 14 January 2025
Representation: The Appellant did not attend
Date of decision: 24 February 2025
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
- Heading
- This appeal is DISMISSED. The Traffic Commissioner’s decisions of 1 March 2024 (ref. OK2024813) involved neither error of law nor mistake of fact. Under section 37(2) and (4) of the Goods Vehicles (Li
- Events preceding the Traffic Commissioner’s decisions
- refused the operator’s application to surrender his operating licence
- the Appellant “has ignored the Public Inquiry process”
- Legislative framework
- an undertaking recorded in the licence has not been fulfilled ( section 26(1) (f))
- ‘Surrender’ of operator’s licences
- Rights of appeal
- Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (“the 2008 Rules”)
- Grounds of appeal
- the Appellant did not produce financial evidence because it was not requested until after his business had closed
- Proceedings before the Upper Tribunal
- Conclusions
- the Appellant gave no reason for failing to attend the hearing on 14 January 2025
- Challenging a Traffic Commissioner’s refusal to accept a surrender request: matters of principle
- Did the Traffic Commissioner lawfully refuse the Appellant’s request to surrender his operator’s licence?
- Why the Appellant’s grounds of appeal are not made out
- this is an assertion unsupported by evidence. The argument is not made out
- this argument is dealt with in paragraphs (2) and (4) above
- this argument is effectively dealt with in paragraph (2) above it was not for the Appellant to give himself permission to ignore the Traffic Commissioner’s legitimate request for information
- Conclusions