![[2025] UKUT 073 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
this is an assertion unsupported by evidence. The argument is not made out
this is an assertion unsupported by evidence. The argument is not made out;
the failure to pay excise tax was only one of a number of failings relied on by the Commissioner. Absent that finding, we are satisfied that the Commissioner would have made the same decisions. In any event, a failure to pay vehicle excise tax cannot be considered a trifling matter even if due to an oversight. Any operator should have systems in place to ensure that vehicle excise tax is paid when due;
this argument is not consistent with the email sent by the Appellant to the DVSA on 21 August 2023 which gave the reason for not being able to meet as “I am away until after the August bank holiday period”;
- 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