![[2025] UKUT 073 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
Rights of appeal
Rights of appeal
Certain Traffic Commissioner decisions, as specified in section 37 of the 1995 Act, carry a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The specified decisions include directions revoking a restricted operator’s licence under section 26(1) and disqualification orders, and associated directions, under section 28(1) and (4). However, section 37 does not mention a Commissioner’s refusal under section 16(4) to comply with a request to surrender an operator’s licence made under section 16(3)
- 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