[2024] UKUT 225 (AAC)

The TC, based on the evidence before him at the PI, recorded adverse decisions against the Appellant as set out at paragraph 1 above. Following the finding that the Appellant did not have sufficient financial standing, he revoked the operator’s licence under s.27(2)(a) of the Act. In light of his finding that the Appellant as transport manager, did not meet the statutory requirements in Schedule 3 of the Act, the TC revoked the Appellant’s operator’s licence under s.27(1)(b) (loss of good repute and of professional competence).

In making his decision, the TC asked the “Priority Freight “question – how likely is it that the operator will comply in the future? – and concluded that this largely depended on the Appellant’s ability to conduct his role as transport manager. He reasoned that given the Appellant’s acceptance that he had not exercised effective or continuous management, his acknowledgement of being out of date on the regulatory regime, and the fact that his CPC training had not updated his practices, the few positives noted by the TC at the PI, were not enough to outweigh the negatives. The TC concluded that the Appellant was unlikely to be compliant going forward and that he was unlikely to be able to fulfil his role as transport manager.

The TC went on to disqualify the Appellant from acting as transport manager based on the same facts, and the case of Alistair Walter [2017] UKUT 0438 (AAC) which provides that the role of operator and transport manager in a business, having overlapping responsibilities, can rarely be legally separated and dealt with differently where they are the same person. The TC followed the guidance set down in Statutory document 10: principles of decision making and the concept of proportionality, which states that the starting point for the period of disqualification of a transport manager after a finding that he is no longer of good repute should be a minimum of one year. The TC set the orders to take effect from 27 July 2023 to allow for a safe run down of the business, having taken account of the Appellant’s intention to retire seven years prior, a loss of sub-contracted work and the employment status of the driver.