[2025] UKUT 073 (AAC)

We shall consider the Appellant’s grounds of appeal in the order set out above in paragraph 24:

the Appellant’s motives for submitting his surrender request are not relevant. What matters is whether regulatory action, in the form of a section 26 direction, was under consideration when the request was submitted. We have found above that it was;

the public inquiry call-up brief recounted that the vehicles were not disposed of until 28 August 2023. The Appellant submitted no evidence to the Traffic Commissioner, nor did he argue, that the vehicles were in fact some other operator’s responsibility at the date of the roadside encounter on 24 July 2023. He also failed to make that argument in an email sent to a DVSA official on 21 August 2023 (see p.72 of the OTC case file). The argument now advanced before the Upper Tribunal is not supported by any evidence. The Appellant fails to establish that the Commissioner’s decision was flawed by reason of any error of fact regarding ownership of, or responsibility for, vehicles, including the vehicle (YK17 VMW) involved with the roadside encounter, before 28 August 2023;