[2025] UKUT 071 (AAC)

As we have said, by his decision the TC revoked licences OK2012880 and OH2017026, (Footnote: ¹) refused the application for licence OF2067675 and disqualified Mr. Dhillon from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of six months in any capacity. The decision was based on breaches of section 26(1)(a), (c), (ca), (e) and (f) of the 1995 Act, as a consequence of which the TC found that the Company no longer met the requirement of fitness to hold a licence.

The decision set out the basic facts of the case and then addressed the application for an adjournment to obtain legal representation as follows:

“8.

On the 21 May 2024 the operator applied for an adjournment saying that legal advice was required and that more time was needed to raise the money to pay for this. There was no indication of the time period that was being requested and the background of the case led me to believe that delay should be minimised. I refused the application saying that representation was optional and that many operators choose to attend inquiries without representation.”

The TC then summarised events at the public inquiry along the lines set out above. Having done so, he continued:

“16.

There is no doubt in this case that there have been breaches of Sections 26(1)(a) (c) (ca) (e) and (f) of the Goods Vehicles Act 1995. The proposed operating centre on the new application has been in use since August 2023, prohibitions and fixed penalties have been issued, statements made when the licences were granted have not been fulfilled and undertakings have not been met. It is apparent from the record that the operator has been afforded several chances to make improvements. Three warnings have been issued and time given to improve which should have been evidenced from the audits or DVSA investigations which followed.

17.

In deciding what action to take in response to these findings and the past history I have to balance the negative aspects with any positives I can find. The negatives are set out in the last paragraph and show a pattern of repeated regulatory failings over the time that the licences have been in force. On the positive side I can see that the operator has made changes in response to some adverse findings made in audits and DVSA investigations but on the other hand there are still areas where significant and worrying failings are evident. In particular I note the analysis prepared by Vehicle Examiner Forshaw of the most recent documentation submitted where he found driver detectable faults as serious as two defective tyres only being identified at a maintenance inspection. I take into account what Mr Dhillon said in relation to making improvements and that English is not his first language, but this cannot be an excuse for operating vehicles that could be a road safety risk. Having balanced all the relevant factors including the history I conclude that this is a case of serious to severe seriousness as defined in Statutory Document 10 issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner.

18.

Having determined the level of seriousness I ask myself the question set out in the case of Priority Freight Limited & Paul Williams i.e. how likely is it that this operator will operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? In other words, can the operator be trusted going forward? The problem for this operator is that he has been trusted and given the chance to improve on at least three occasions previously and yet he has failed to show satisfactory levels of compliance up to the date of this inquiry. Mr Dhillon said it had not been clear to him when warnings were issued what he needed to do to improve but the onus is on him as an operator to find out what is required and implement improvement accordingly. My conclusion therefore is that I cannot trust the operator to maintain sufficient compliance if the licence is allowed to continue. For these reasons I find that fitness to hold a restricted licence is no longer shown and believe there is need to put the operator out of business as a consequence. I therefore revoke the existing licences with effect from the 5 August 2024 allowing a period before revocation to give the operator time to complete any outstanding work commitments. The application for a new licence in the Eastern Traffic Area is refused.

19.

I have considered whether the director should be disqualified from holding a licence for a period and have decided that such an order is proportionate and necessary because I believe Mr Dhillon needs some time away from holding a licence so he can reflect on what has happened. However, taking into account the positive aspects of the case as detailed and the efforts Mr Dhillon has made, I limit the period of disqualification to six months which will also commence on the 5 August 2024 and applies to Mr Dhillon as an individual, partner or director. If he decides after that time to reapply for a licence, he will need to show that he has learned from this experience and that he has a network of professional support available to him to ensure compliance is guaranteed.”

In his decision of 7^th August 2024 refusing the application for a stay, the TC said:

“4.

… A pattern of some temporary improvements by the operator but few long term changes was evident to me. It followed from that conclusion that ongoing compliance was unlikely if the operator was allowed to continue in business and the Priority Freight question was answered in the negative.

5.

My primary consideration when considering this stay application however, is the potential risk to road safety. I summarised in the “Background” section of my decision the occasions when road safety critical faults had been found on authorised vehicles and drivers’ walk round checks had not been taken effectively. I also emphasised the finding that even in the very recent documentation produced for the inquiry two illegal tyres were found at a maintenance inspection when five days before a nil defect walk round check had been recorded.

6.

I remind myself that [Mr. Dhillon] was aware of the pending public inquiry when this serious error was made and it still happened …”