[2025] UKUT 217 (AAC)

Paragraph 22 forms part of the Traffic Commissioner’s findings of fact. It reads:

Mr Brayley-Willmetts highlights the use of the words ‘likely’, ‘possible’ and ‘probable’ and suggests that any doubt should have been resolved in his favour.

The Traffic Commissioner makes his findings of fact using the standard ‘the balance of probabilities’. He is entitled to make findings on the basis of what is ‘likely’ and ‘probable’ and to reject an alternative which is ‘possible’. There is no error of law or fact in the Traffic Commissioner’s approach.

Any delay in providing a transcript/recording postdates the relevant decision and cannot amount to an error or procedural unfairness in relation to the decision under appeal. We were satisfied we could proceed fairly now that Mr Brayley-Willmetts had been provided with the transcript and has had the opportunity to make any points he wished on the basis of that transcript.

We find that the Traffic Commissioner was entitled, on the basis of the information before him, to make the findings that he did.

The Traffic Commissioner was entitled, on the evidence before him, to make the adverse findings of fact that he made, in particular at paragraphs 21, 22 and 25. He was entitled, on the evidence before him, to make the findings at paragraphs 25-26 that, as a matter of fact, Mr Brayley-Willmetts was responsible for the more technical matters. He was entitled to reach the conclusion in paragraph 27 that:

We have already considered paragraph 28 above.

As we set out above, the Traffic Commissioner’s findings in paragraph 29 are not entirely clear, and it not clear what weight, if any, the Traffic Commissioner placed on those particular findings. However, given the other findings that the Traffic Commissioner made, it is clear to us that the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to reach the conclusions that he reached even if no weight is placed on the matters set out in paragraph 29. On that basis we find that any failure to provide clearer reasons in relation to paragraph 29 is not material.

The Traffic Commissioner considered the compliance documents brought to the inquiry and concluded at paragraph 31 that there had been ‘minimal improvement’. On the basis of the detail provided in that paragraph, that was a conclusion that he was entitled to reach.

In the light of the information before the Traffic Commissioner, he was entitled to reach the conclusion in paragraph 34 that, as a matter of fact, the roadworthiness matters were the responsibility of Mr Brayley-Willmetts. He has explained, to an adequate standard, why he took a different approach to Mr Brayley-Willmetts than he took to Zena Gillbard.

Taking all that into account, the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to reach the conclusion that the roadworthiness matters were ‘far from where they should be’ and that Mr Brayley-Willmetts had ‘not exercised the most basic of control, seeking instead to rely on DVSA to identify shortcomings that he will then discuss with the maintenance provider, when he gets round to it some weeks or months in the future’.

Given those findings, we are not persuaded that the Traffic Commissioner’s finding of a loss of repute, and the consequent disqualification for a year, was a disproportionate response. We are not persuaded that the decision was plainly wrong.

On that basis we dismiss the appeal.