[2024] UKUT 425 (AAC)

This appeal succeeds. The Commissioner erred in law in giving a direction to revoke this operator’s licence. However, deciding what happens next is not so straightforward. The Commissioner’s revocation direction cannot stand but, at the same time, the Upper Tribunal should not merely set aside the revocation direction and leave it at that. As things stand, if this operator resumes its business, upon the restoration of its operator’s licence, it will be in breach of the requirement to have a designated transport manager and, for a standard licence holder, that is a mandatory ground for revocation under section 27(1) of the 1995 Act.

Our order disposing of this appeal, set out above before our reasons for allowing this appeal, endeavours to put the operator back in the position in which it stood just before the OTC issued its PTR letter. That letter was flawed because it failed properly to explain the operator’s right to request a public inquiry. However, the operator is now well aware of what a public inquiry entails and so it would be artificial to expect the OTC to start the entire regulatory enforcement process afresh. Instead, we have ordered that the OTC’s PTR letter of 3 June 2024 / notice under section 27(2) of the 1995 Act shall have effect as if it were a PTR letter / section 27(2) notice given on the day that our decision is issued.

Our order means that the operator should respond anew to the OTC’s PTR letter / section 27(2) notice, and it has 21 days from the date on which this decision is issued to provide written representations against revocation to the OTC. The operator also has the opportunity to make a fresh request for a period of grace. For 21 days following the date on which this decision is issued, the operator’s licence is restored. What happens next is in the hands of a Traffic Commissioner.