Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber

[2025] UKUT 217 (AAC)

Fecha: 17-Jun-2025

Grounds of appeal and arguments

Grounds of appeal and arguments

28.

The grounds of appeal state:

Having attended numerous public inquiries both as a DVSA officer and a transport consultant, I believe that the penalty imposed in this case is excessively severe.

29.

Mr Brayley-Willmetts also makes the following arguments in the grounds of appeal:

In relation to paragraph 4 of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision, ‘Mr Williams highlighted a significant number of deficiencies with respect to the completion of the safety inspection reports. Many inspections did not have brake performance figures on the inspection sheet’:

Mr Brayley-Willmetts says that all inspection reports were accompanied by printouts of the roller brake test, so describing this as a deficiency misrepresents the Partnership as not having conducted roller brake tests, which is inaccurate.

ii.

The Traffic Commissioner says that the report found that the MOT pass rate was of concern and there was no wheel security or tyre management policy in place. Mr Brayley-Willmetts states that policies for wheel security and tyre management were in place at the time of the report. He says that the Traffic Commissioner had copies of those policies but did not acknowledge them.

In relation to paragraph 7 of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision Mr Brayley-Willmetts notes that Mr Martin acknowledged later in the inquiry that an email confirming attendance had been sent on 27 August 2024. Mr Brayley-Willmetts suggests that the uploaded documents might be found in the same location that the email was found in. He asserts that the statement made in paragraph 7 is not correct given that the email acknowledging attendance had been sent.

In relation to paragraph 11 Mr Brayley-Willmetts says that the vehicle was taken for a roller brake test where the imbalance was identified and says that it was immediately rectified, retested and passed the roller brake test. He states that he is unclear what more could have been done and says that the second test is not mentioned in the report.

In relation to paragraph 22 Mr Brayley-Willmetts highlights the use of the words ‘likely’ and ‘probable’ and suggests that any doubt should have been resolved in his favour.

In relation to paragraph 28 Mr Brayley-Willmetts refers back to his point on paragraph 7 and suggests there are questions in relation to the process used to confirm the receipt/upload of compliance documentation.

In relation to paragraph 29, Mr Brayley-Willmetts says that the criticism of him for not submitting documentation in relation to another company where he serves as external Transport Manager is unwarranted, because the call-up letter did not mention the other company.

30.

At the hearing, Mr Brayley-Willmetts addressed us on the above and made the following points:

He was unhappy with the attitude of the Traffic Commissioner who had accused him of not uploading the paperwork and then coming back at the end of the hearing and saying that the clerk had found an email from him. Mr Brayley-Willmetts suggested that the documents he had uploaded might be found in the place they had found the email.

He had great difficulty in obtaining a recording/transcript from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.