![[2025] UKUT 073 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
the Appellant did not produce financial evidence because it was not requested until after his business had closed
the Appellant did not produce financial evidence because it was not requested until after his business had closed;
the Commissioner was wrong to find that the Appellant made a false declaration on a 2019 licence application and that the trust then shown in him was misplaced. He was never a part of JCG Transport Ltd and that is why he did not mention it in his sole operator’s licence application;
the finding that the Appellant operated ‘multi axle lethal weapons’ with little regard for safety was inconsistent with the “good roadworthiness report when I owned the vehicles”;
the Commissioner said that the Appellant ignored the public inquiry process, but he was not aware of this until ‘recently’.
- 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