[2025] UKUT 217 (AAC)

Paragraph 7 is an explanation of what happened at the start of the hearing and sets out what the Traffic Commissioner said to the attendees and their responses. Having read the transcript we find that it is an accurate summary of the start of the hearing.

It is true that there was a later discussion of whether Mr Brayley-Willmetts had confirmed attendance. That shows that the Traffic Commissioner originally told Mr Brayley-Willmetts that the clerk had not received an email confirming attendance in relation to the relisted hearing and then later confirmed that the clerk had found the email in question. In our view, it may have been preferable to include in the decision a summary of this later part of the hearing as well. However, the failure to do so is not material, because it is clear from the findings of fact and the operative part of the decision, that a failure to confirm attendance did not form part of the reasons for the Traffic Commissioner’s decision.

The Traffic Commissioner found as follows:

The Traffic Commissioner took account of the failure to upload compliance documentation, but he did not take account of any failure to confirm attendance and it does not form part of his decision. Whether or not Mr Brayley-Willmetts confirmed that he was attending the hearing is irrelevant to the Traffic Commissioner’s conclusions in paragraph 28 in relation to uploading documents.

Mr Brayley-Willmetts suggested in his grounds of appeal that given the clerk had later found his email confirming the attendance, the documents he had attempted to upload might be found in the same location. That was not raised with the Traffic Commissioner. In any event, Mr Brayley-Willmetts said he had tried to upload the documents, not that he had tried to email them to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. In those circumstances, there was no prospect of the documents being ‘found’ in the clerk’s email inbox and the audit function showed that no attempt to upload had been made.

We find that the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to reach the conclusions he reached in relation to the uploading of documents on the basis of the evidence before him.

In paragraph 29 the Traffic Commissioner states:

We find that the Traffic Commissioner’s reasons could have been clearer on this point. The Traffic Commissioner sets out that Mr Brayley-Willmetts did not seek to provide evidence of the compliance systems on the other licence for which he is Transport Manager but then states ‘in fairness’ that the call-up did not mention that operator. It is not clear what the Traffic Commissioner’s conclusion was on Mr Brayley-Willmett’s culpability on this point, nor what weight it carried, if any, in his decision.

Overall, we find that the reasons are adequate, and that any error in not providing clearer reasoning on this particular finding is not material, because (i) whatever the Traffic Commissioner’s conclusions, it is clear that in reaching those conclusions he did take into account the fact that the call-up had not mentioned the other operator and (ii) as set out below, we find that the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to reach the decision he reached on the basis of the other matters set out in the findings of fact.