Heading

Appeal No. UA-2025-000137-T
Before: E Mitchell, Judge of the Upper Tribunal
D Rawsthorn, Specialist Member of the Upper Tribunal
M Smith, Specialist Member of the Upper Tribunal
Appellants: (1) K & B Haulage Ltd; (2) Kyle Gettings
Hearing: Cardiff Civil Justice Centre on 11 August 2025
Representation: Neither party attended the hearing
On appeal from:
Decision maker: Traffic Commissioner in the Western Traffic Area
Commissioner’s ref: OH2040441
Date of decision: 13 January 2025
SUMMARY OF DECISION
100 Transport (Traffic Commissioner and DfI NI) appeals
100.12 Revocation, suspension and curtailment
100.13 Disqualification
Judicial summary
The Traffic Commissioner properly considered whether revocation of an operator’s licence and disqualification orders were a proportionate regulatory response. In fact, the Commissioner’s careful questioning of the operator at a public inquiry about the likely consequences of different degrees of regulatory intervention, may, in the Upper Tribunal’s view, properly be considered a model of informed proportionality enquiry.
Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.
DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
- Heading
- This appeal is DISMISSED. The Traffic Commissioner’s decision of 13 January 2025 directing revocation of the First Appellant’s operator’s licence (no. OH2040441), under section 26(1) of the Goods Vehi
- Introduction
- Factual background
- Undertakings
- DVSA Vehicle Examiner involvement with operator
- The public inquiry
- Fail to notify of change in maintenance arrangements…
- that your vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable
- Section 10
- The Traffic Commissioner’s decision
- Kyle Gettings lied to DVSA Examiners “about not having driven YK16XYC on the morning of 27 August 2024”
- The Traffic Commissioner’s analysis
- Legal framework
- “that during the five years ending with the date on which the direction is given there has been—
- “that the licence-holder made…for the purposes of—
- Grounds of appeal
- substantial compliance improvements have been made since the public inquiry hearing the financial and related consequences of revocation would be dire
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 328 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)