Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 103 (AAC)

Fecha: 01-Ene-2025

Factual background

Factual background

The background to this appeal is as follows. On 12^th July 2024, the Appellant (“Connect”) applied for a standard national licence authorising two vehicles and two trailers at an operating centre at J A Wyard Depot, Beaconsfield Road, Ipswich. The nominated transport manager was Alec Smith who was also the sole director of the company. The accompanying transport manager form nominating Mr Smith was not accompanied with the original copy of Mr Smith’s certificate of professional competence (“CPC”) but rather a traffic management qualification by Lantra.

On 18^th July 2024, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”), wrote to Connect to notify the company that its application was incomplete for the following reasons:

•

There was no advert submitted in support of the application.

•

The nominated transport manager’s original certificate/s of professional competence in road haulage was required.

•

A written explanation, with supporting evidence, about how the company had been meeting its transport needs since its incorporation on 16^th September 2021, including the weight of vehicles used or details of any third party used to provide transport.

Connect was given until 1^st August 2024 to respond to the letter and was warned that failure to provide all of the information requested may result in the application being refused. In response to the letter, Connect submitted a compliant advertisement.

On the 13^th August 2024, the OTC wrote to Connect again. The letter was intended as a final attempt to resolve the issues raised by no later than 27^th August 2024. Connect was warned that if by that date, the application remained incomplete, the application would be refused. The following outstanding documentation was required:

•

Mr Smith’s original CPC.

•

A written explanation with supporting evidence, about how the company had been meeting its transport needs since its incorporation on 16^th September 2021, including the weight of vehicles used or details of any third party used to provide transport.

•

An aerial image of the proposed operating centre showing the location of the site in relation to the surrounding area and parking spaces for the requested authority. It had not been possible to determine the location of the site from internet searches and the traffic commissioner needed to be satisfied that the site was suitable for use.

It appears that in response, Connect resubmitted the compliant advertisement.

By a letter dated 20^th September 2024, the company’s application was refused under s.13(5) of the Act for the following reasons:

•

In the absence of a CPC in the name of Mr Smith, the TC could not be satisfied that the company had nominated a suitable transport manager meeting the requirements of paragraph 14A(1) and (2) or 14A(1) and (3) of Schedule 3 of the Act as set out in s.13A(3) of the Act.

•

No written explanation had been received of how the company had been meeting its transport needs since its incorporation.

•

No aerial image of the proposed operating centre had been provided and it was therefore impossible for the TC to be satisfied that the proposed operating centre was available to the company as required under s13(C)(5) of the Act or that the proposed operating centre had enough space as required under s.13C(6) of the 1995 Act.