Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 103 (AAC)

Fecha: 01-Ene-2025

Conclusions

The grounds of appeal and the parties’ submissions

The main thrust of Connect’s appeal was that the application for a licence had been made by a member of the office staff who was unaware of the statutory requirements to be met in order to be granted a licence. When filing the Appeal Notice, the same member of staff had attached to it, the aerial photograph which had been requested by the OTC without any explanation as to why it had not been provided to the OTC when requested and a further copy of Mr Smith’s Lantra qualification. Mr Smith accepted that he (and the member of staff) were unaware of the legal requirements and of the existence of certificates of professional competence. He did not possess one. He accepted that in the circumstances, the application before the TC was bound to fail.

Analysis

It was explained to Mr Smith that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is one of review rather than rehearing and that in the circumstances, the appeal was bound to fail. It became clear during Mr Smith’s representations that in fact, the company only used its vehicles to carry its own goods. He was unaware that in the alternative to a standard licence, a restricted operator’s licence could be applied for in those circumstances.

Conclusion

Taking all the circumstances into account, we are not satisfied that there was any procedural unfairness in this case or that the TC’s decision was plainly wrong in any respect and neither the facts nor the law applicable should impel the Tribunal to allow this appeal as per the test in Bradley Fold Travel & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695. The appeal is dismissed.

Her Honour Judge Beech

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Authorised by the Judge for issue on 25^th March 2025