[2025] UKUT 231 (AAC)

The appellant was the holder of a PSV operator’s licence authorising 8 public service vehicles. The licence was granted on 28 January 2014.

On 10 December 2023 OTC wrote to the appellant with a licence “check list” (for review) and request for current financial information.

The appellant responded in a letter dated 22 December 2023. The first paragraph of that letter stated:

Having conducted a review of the company’s finances in respect of our licence renewal, I have determined that the company does not currently meet financial standing regulations and as such, I request a period of grace to re-establish such standing. I can confirm that the company is profitable and I believe that financial standing can be achieved and maintained as outlined below.

The letter continued over two pages, with one section under the heading “Reason for non-compliance”, and another under the heading “Re-attaining and maintaining financial standing”. The “period of grace” requested was for six months. The final paragraph of the letter stated:

If the requested period of grace is not granted for any reason, then the company respectfully requests that the matter be referred for a public inquiry.

On 11 January 2024 OTC wrote to the appellant stating that the TC had considered its request for a period of grace and requesting further information (5 items were listed) before making a decision.

On 18 January 2024, the appellant, through its then-solicitors, responded to the 11 January letter from OTC. The penultimate paragraph read as follows:

If the [TC] is not minded to grant the period of grace requested at this stage and to allow for the voluntary curtailment down to four vehicles, then we are instructed to request a public inquiry in line with earlier correspondence, before any action is taken against the licence.

In an email to OTC on 15 February 2024 the appellant’s solicitors provided further information and expressed willingness to curtail the licence down to two vehicles.

On 19 February 2024 OTC wrote to the appellant; the letter began by referring to OTC’s 18 January 2024 letter “regarding the issues with financial standing”. The letter then referred to s17(1A) and the 2009 regulation, and stated that the TC had decided to allow the appellant’s licence to remain in force until 17 May 2024 in order to rectify matters. It then required certain further information and referred to the licence being reduced down to two vehicles. The fourth paragraph of the letter then read as follows:

On your application the [TC] has made a finding that you no longer meet the requirement of financial standing so as to allow you the requested Period of Grace. The [TC] has therefore complied with the requirements of section 17(1A) … (in accordance with regulation 9 of the Public Service Vehicles (Operators' Licences) Regulations 1995). The TC is obliged to revoke the licence under the provisions of s17(1) … if you fail to provide suitable financial evidence which shows you have continued access to the required funds by [17 May 2024].

On 16 May 2024 the appellant provided information as requested in OTC’s letter of 19 February 2024; the letter accepted that the appellant still did not meet financial standing “as an average over the required period”; it referred to payments that were still expected; it “therefore” asked for the current period of grace to be extended by three months (to the maximum of six months); and if the TC was not agreeable to this request, a public inquiry was requested before any action was taken against the licence.

The revocation letter from OTC of 22 May 2024 said this (amongst other things):

The [TC] has considered the company’s request for an extension of the period of grace, and in the light of the reasons stated above, has found the information, as has been provided by the company, falls short of meeting the standard that there are reasonable prospects for a ‘good outcome’ and therefore has refused the company’s request for an extension to the period of grace.

The [TC] has also considered the company’s request for a public inquiry and does not consider that revocation of the licence should be deferred to allow such a hearing to be convened.