[2025] UKUT 231 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 231 (AAC)

Fecha: 20-May-2025

Why the revocation falls to be set aside

Why the revocation falls to be set aside

29.

It is clear that in this case the TC did not follow the two-step process for granting “periods of grace” that, per Egertons, is required by the 2009 regulation; in particular, the TC did not give notice under regulation 9 of the Public Service Vehicles (Operators' Licences) Regulations 1995, which should have been the first step; instead, it “jumped” to the second step, which was the OTC letter of 19 February 2024. It is not hard to understand, on the facts of this case, why the TC took that approach: it was the appellant who first asked for a “period of grace”, having stated that it was not meeting the requirement of financial standing (see its letter of 22 December 2023). However, as was said in Egertons at [42], the first stage of the period of grace process cannot be “dispensed with” in circumstances such as these, and the facts of this case bring out one important reason why: the operator’s decision as to whether request (and so require) a public inquiry must be made prior to the “period of grace” being granted, since, once it is granted, the right to a public inquiry is (in effect) lost; it is therefore important as a matter of procedural fairness that, via the 14-day period for requesting a public inquiry that is built in to the notification procedure in the first stage of the “period of grace” process (see [14d] above), the operator is put on notice that it is at this stage of the process that it must choose whether or not it wants a public inquiry.

30.

In our view, the TC erred in law in not carrying out the first stage of the period of grace process as laid down in the 2009 regulation, by not giving correct notice under regulation 9 of the Public Service Vehicles (Operators' Licences) Regulations 1995; and that the error was material, as following that procedure may have caused the appellant to have requested a public inquiry at a time when that option was still open to it; and the holding of such an inquiry may have produced a different outcome to the revocation.

31.

It follows that the revocation falls to be set aside.