![[2025] UKUT 073 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
the Appellant “has ignored the Public Inquiry process”
the Appellant “has ignored the Public Inquiry process”.
The Commissioner’s reasons for disqualifying Mr Jones indefinitely were as follows:
“14. It is not possible to set a period of disqualification where there has been so little engagement. On the evidence before me now no set timescale would be meaningful. At present it is difficult to see what steps Mr Jones could take to rehabilitate himself in the eyes of the Traffic Commissioner. The lack of cooperation from July 2023 to date has a direct impact on my ability and therefore to that extent Mr Jones’s own actions have worked against him in terms of disqualification…”.
- 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