[2025] UKUT 347 (AAC)

The background to this appeal is as follows. On 30^th January 2025, the Appellant (“the company”) uploaded onto the VOL system an application to vary its restricted operator’s licence by increasing its vehicle authorisation from three vehicles to five vehicles and one trailer and by varying the location of its operating centre from Breach Farm, Egdon Lane, Worcester to Upper Haselor Farm, Hinton-on-the-Green, Evesham. Attached to the application was the full edition of the Pershore Times (all thirty-one pages) dated February 2025. Unfortunately, Mr Lusted made an obvious mistake in the application by stating that the advertisement had been placed in the newspaper on 28^th February 2025.

By a letter dated 10^th February 2025, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”), informed the company that its application was incomplete in two respects. Confirmation was required that the proposed operating centre could receive correspondence and the second was worded as follows:

On 10^th February 2025, Mr Lusted confirmed that the company’s correspondence address would not change. Moreover, Mr Lusted incorrectly volunteered that with regard to the advertisement, he had previously used the same newspaper for the company’s last application and that “it was fine”. In fact he had used the Worcester News on two previous occasions.

On 10^th March 2025, Mr Lusted uploaded a message onto VOL complaining about the delay in considering the application and that an interim licence had not been granted.

On 11^th March 2025, submissions were made to the TC. The first recommended that as the only issue had been that the advertisement was in a monthly newspaper, that the application be granted as applied for but that the company should be advised that in future it should not advertise in a monthly newspaper as it may not be accepted by the TC. The second submission recommended refusal of the application as the newspaper was monthly and appeared to be used for local advertisements only and did not show any other public notices. However, in view of the delay in referring the application to the TC, the company should be offered a fee waiver if a new application was submitted within fourteen days.

On 12^th March 2025, the TC refused the application for different reasons. He was satisfied that the newspaper was sufficient as it was predominantly a newspaper and there was no difficulty in it being a monthly publication . The difficulty was that it simply stated the date of publication as “February 2025” which might have meant that it was published at the beginning of January which would have been outside the 42 day window stipulated by s.19 of the Act and it was noted that Mr Lusted had stated that it was published on 28^th February 2025 which would also have been out of time. It was for the company to establish when the advertisement was published. However, in view of the delay in referring the application to the TC, the OTC should waive the application fee were a further application to be made which was fully compliant with s.19 of the Act.

The refusal letter was dated 31^st March 2025 (there is nothing in the appeal file which might explain this delay). The company chose not to re-apply but rather appealed.