![[2024] UKUT 365 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png){kind=logo}
This appeal is ALLOWED. The decision taken by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner on 2 May 2024 to direct revocation of the Appellant’s operator’s licence involved an error of law. The Commissioner’s deci
This appeal is ALLOWED. The decision taken by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner on 2 May 2024 to direct revocation of the Appellant’s operator’s licence involved an error of law. The Commissioner’s decision is SET ASIDE.
Subject matter: revocation of operator’s licence
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
On 2 May 2024, a Deputy Traffic Commissioner revoked the goods vehicle operator’s licence held by the Appellant (the operator). The Commissioner was satisfied that a number of the statutory grounds for revocation, set out in section 26 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (1995 Act), were made out. For present purposes, however, the significant part of the decision letter read as follows:
“I refer to our letter dated 3 April 2024 notifying you that the Traffic Commissioner was considering revoking your goods vehicle operator’s licence.
In the absence of a response to this letter or a request for a public inquiry to be held, the Traffic Commissioner has revoked your operator’s licence with effect from 2 May2024…”
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner granted a stay on his revocation direction coming into effect pending the operator’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The Commissioner’s reasons for granting a stay included the following:
“From the Upper Tribunal bundle papers which I received earlier this week I note that, according to the Royal Mail records, the recorded delivery “propose to revoke” letter was not actually delivered despite three attempts to do so. I also note that, according to the operator, he had an out of office email message on at the time, which said that the director was out of the country and would not be dealing with emails.
The material before me when I made my decision to revoke the licence did not include the information that the operator had not actually received the letter or that the email message would not have been read. Looking at the whole picture, revealed to me now for the first time, I conclude that I would in fact not have revoked this licence but would have allowed some extra time for reply.
As this was a decision to revoke, it cannot be reviewed under Section 36 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. In the circumstances I am satisfied that it is just to stay this decision pursuant to section 29(2), pending consideration by the Upper Tribunal. I also invite the Upper Tribunal to remit the matter for redetermination.”