[2025] UKUT 283 (AAC)

The Appellant (“RTI”) is the holder of a standard international operator’s licence authorising ten vehicles and four trailers with the same number in possession. The transport manager was Frank Taylor who was also a director of the company along with Christopher Stanton.

On 23^rd January 2025, Frank Taylor resigned as the transport manager of the company (and updated the VOL system to that effect) and stepped down as a director, although he remained named as such on the Companies House records. As a result of the VOL update, a “propose to revoke” letter was sent on 24^th January 2025 by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”) under s.27 of the Act. RTI was given until 14^th February 2025 to make written representations and to nominate a replacement transport manager. There was nothing in the letter or the attachments to it which mandated that the TM1 form had to be uploaded onto the VOL system and sent by post to the OTC for it to be a valid nomination.

On 24^th January 2025, Christopher Poole (“Mr Poole”) uploaded onto the VOL system, a TM1 form nominating himself as the proposed transport manager (internal). The application highlighted that Mr Poole was the transport manager on the licence of DLG Contracts Limited, a company linked to RTI. Unfortunately, whilst he had signed the form as the proposed transport manager, a director had not signed the form as required and a contract of employment was not attached.

On 3^rd February 2025, the OTC notified RTI that its application was incomplete and that it needed to:

On 19^th February 2025, the OTC emailed Mr Poole advising him that the uploaded TM1 form had not been signed by a director and she required a contract of employment in respect of the RTI licence. Mr Poole asked for a period of grace and the TM1 form for a director to sign which he would post on a twenty-four hour delivery basis (there was no requirement imposed upon him to post the form in addition to uploading the completed document). The form was sent to him and Mr Stanton duly signed it on 20^th February 2025 and it was uploaded onto the VOL system along with a contract of employment and a letter from Mr Poole explaining his work with other companies all linked with RTI. He did not post a copy of the form to the OTC.

By a letter dated 23^rd February 2025, the OTC informed RTI that its licence was at risk. A period of grace was granted to 9^th March 2025 to enable RTI to submit a TM1 form signed by Mr Poole and Mr Stanton. The letter did not state that the form had to be submitted by post. By a separate letter of the same date, the OTC required an explanation from Mr Stanton as to why Mr Taylor continued to be listed as a director of RTI when he had been removed from the licence on 23^rd January 2025 and required an explanation as to why the change of directors had not been reported to the OTC. In view of the change of directors, the company was required to submit its last 3 months company bank statements. A response was required by 9^th March 2025.

In the submissions made to the TC by the OTC staff on 10^th March 2025, it was recommended that RTI’s licence be revoked under s.27(1)(a) of the Act. Nevertheless, the TC asked for a review. He could not see any record which indicated that the TM1 application remained incomplete and whilst the licence must be revoked upon the expiry of a period of grace he was concerned that RTI may have taken the action required.

On the same day, further submissions were made to the TC recommending approval of the transport manager nomination along with a request for further information. It was noted that whilst Mr Poole had said that he would send the TM1 form declarations by post, he had uploaded them onto the VOL system on 20^th February 2025. The application was therefore complete save for receipt of the wet signature. If the TC was content with the upload alone, then Mr Poole could be added to the licence and that would leave the outstanding issues of director change and finances. In addition, a request for a signed TM1 declaration to be sent by post could be made in case the company had already sent one which had been lost in the post. The TC disagreed with that recommendation and revoked the licence on the grounds that the company had failed to comply with the request for further information made on 3^rd February 2025 and as a result, its application to nominate a replacement transport manager remained outstanding and it’s licence was revoked with 28 days’ notice under s.27(1)(a) of the Act.

Mr Stanton responded to the letter concerning directors and finance on 10^th March 2025, a day after the TC had ordered revocation of the licence. He averred that he had only just returned from holiday. It had been assumed that Mr Taylor would remove himself as a director of the company at Companies House having resigned and Mr Stanton apologised for the misunderstanding. He had initially invested in the company and had now taken it over and was in the process of setting up a new business bank account. He asked for a period of grace to demonstrate financial standing in three months’ time whilst submitting the current financial position.

A further submission was made to the TC. It was recommended that further information be requested from RTI. However, as the letter was received after the period of grace had expired, the TC determined that the order of revocation must stand.

RTI appealed and was granted a stay by Judge Mitchell, Judge of the Upper Tribunal on 8^th April 2025.