[2024] UKUT 225 (AAC)

The Appellant either accepted or had no answer for the unsupportive evidence that had arisen at the PHR Grab Hire Ltd’s PI, which connected him, albeit indirectly, to a site linked to organised crime and illegal waste storage/removal. His evidence during the appeal echoed his comments at the PI in this regard and there was no challenge presented. The same can be said in relation to his own maintenance and inspection records, which appeared to be of greater concern to the TC in making his decision. Again, the Appellant accepted the facts presented and acknowledged both at the PI and at the appeal hearing, that his maintenance and inspection standards were out of date and therefore lacking. He took no issue with the finding of loss of repute and/or professional competence as a transport manager.

Section 27(1)(b) of the Act provides that a TC shall direct that a standard licence be revoked if at any time it appears to him that the designated transport manager no longer satisfies one or more of the requirements set out in paragraph14A(1) and (2) or (1) and (3) of Schedule 3. One of those requirements is that the transport manager is of good repute (paragraph 14A(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Act). A traffic commissioner shall not make a finding that a transport manager is not of good repute unless that person has been served with a notice stating the allegations against him, the fact that his good repute is in issue, that he can make representations and that he can have an inquiry to determine the matter (paragraph 15(1) of Scheule 3 to the Act). Paragraph 16 of Scheule 3 to the Act deals with the position if such a finding is made:

“16.(1) In proceedings under this Act or the 2009 Regulation for determining whether a person who is a transport manager is of good repute or professionally competent, a traffic commissioner must, in accordance with paragraph 5(2) (if applicable), consider whether a finding that the person was no longer of good repute or (as the case may be) professionally competent would constitute a disproportionate response.

(2)

If the commissioner determines that the person is no longer of good repute or (as the case may be) professionally competent, the commissioner must order the person to be disqualified (either indefinitely or for such period as the commissioner thinks fit) from acting as a transport manager.”

In this case, the TC found that the Appellant had lost his good repute and professional competence as transport manager on the basis that he accepted his lack of effective or continuous management, that he was out of date and that the CPC training had been insufficient to keep him on track with the regulatory requirements. The Appellant had been given warning of the risk that such a finding may be made, and was given the opportunity to make representations at a PI. The TC considered proportionality, balancing positives and negatives, and following the relevant case law guidance on the matter. In light of his finding of loss of good repute, he exercised his discretion to disqualify the Appellant from acting as Transport Manager for a period of one year, following the Statutory Guidance in making his decision. Given the fact that the Appellant does not dispute the findings of fact, the TC was obliged to revoke the Appellant’s licence and while he chose to disqualify, he did not do so for an unreasonable period of time, following the guidance precisely. We do not find that the TC was plainly wrong in his decision to revoke the Appellant’s licence on the basis of the Appellant’s failings as transport manager. We cannot allow the appeal on this ground.