[2025] UKUT 071 (AAC)

In the notice of appeal dated 2^nd August 2024 the grounds of appeal were set out as follows:

“I feel that Mr. Baker was unduly harsh in revoking the operator licences.

We have made huge improvements since the DVSA enquiry and we have a Transport Consultant looking after us. We will also offer to add a Transport Manager with a CPC to the licence to ensure compliance.

English is not my first language, so it’s been a learning process that we have been going through. We are now in a good position to stay compliant with the law.

Putting my company out of business is unfair as it can be operated safely and in a compliant way.

Since our Transport Consultant started to work with us, things have improved, but the Traffic Commissioner hasn’t given us enough time to prove this. If we were given a 6 month period of grace to prove that we are now compliant, this would be very fair. But [to revoke] the licence with 28 days notice is excessive.”

When the Appellants’ application for a stay was received by the Upper Tribunal, they were given a brief period within which to provide reasons for a stay. Those reasons were given in a letter dated 8^th August 2024, which included the following:

“We submitted our vehicle to our garage for MOT preparation a few days before it was due.

The garage (Commercial Care) wrote on the PMI sheet that the tyre depth was 0 mm because the tyre needed changing. When questioned, they confirmed it was actually at 1mm but they wanted to make sure that we arranged for it to be changed straight away.

I called the tyre company (Szol Tyres) as we have a contract with them. They said they would come that evening to change the tyre. However, they did not arrive but said they would come the following morning. I said I would take the vehicle to them as it was on the way to a small job I needed to do. When I arrived at Szol tyres they informed me that they were out on another job and would come to my yard on their way back.

So I took the vehicle to the job I needed to do because the tread depth was actually 1 mm and the tyre was legal. As an experienced operator I believed that the tyres were legal.”

The letter also gave details of expenditure incurred and the consequences of the loss of the licences. This material was relied upon by Judge Rupert Jones when he granted a stay of the revocation of the licences. In particular, he concluded that there was a genuine dispute as to whether there would be any public safety issue in the operator continuing to operate in the interim.