[2024] UKUT 421 (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 decision and leave it at that because, as things stand, this operator, upon restoration of its licence, would be in breach of the requirement to have a designated transport manager. 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 26 July 2024 shall have effect as if it were a PTR letter (a notice under section 27(2) of the 1995 Act) given on the day that our decision is issued.

Our order means that the operator should respond anew to the OTC’s PTR letter dated 26 July 2024, 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.