[2024] UKUT 240 (AAC)

It may be that the fact that some correspondence thus reached the operator without recourse to accessing the VOL system lulled the operator into a false sense of security. It may be that, affected by anxiety and worrying about the data breach his web security provider had alerted him to, Mr Stafford was disinclined to respond to the notifications from the VOL system we find he did receive. We are, though, of the view that he could have done so and by failing to do so, the operator was the author of its own misfortune.

We do not consider that the fact that the operator additionally received, by second class post, the letter requiring action for which the deadline (when the letter was sent by that method) had already expired can affect the position, given our findings that the operator had accepted, and not withdrawn, his agreement to electronic notification and that the relevant letter was correctly issued through the VOL and not accessed. The practice of later sending out a hard copy letter is, however, bound to create a degree of resentment in a case such as this and appears largely futile if the deadline will have passed by the time the intended recipient gets it by that method. That however is an operational issue for the OTC to review if they think fit.

The result of our decision dismissing the appeal is that the operator will have to apply for a new licence, if he is minded to do so. It is a pity that during the excessive time that has passed since the decision under challenge the operator has been unable to operate, but that might well have been avoided had it pursued the suggestions that it seek a stay (see para.17 above).