Neutral Citation Number: [2010] UKUT 27 (AAC)

Appeal No. 2009/520

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS

ON APPEAL from the DECISION of

Richard Turfitt Traffic Commissioner for the

Eastern Traffic Area dated 6 November 2009

Before:

Hugh Carlisle QC Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Stuart James Member of the Upper Tribunal

John Robinson Member of the Upper Tribunal

Appellant:

JOHN & SHANE MOORE

(t/a JOHN MOORE EVENT (FURNITURE) HIRE

Attendances:

For the Appellants: No-one appeared

Heard at: Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London

Date of hearing: 12 January 2010

Date of decision: 26 January 2010

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal be DISMISSED.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.           This was an appeal against the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the Eastern Traffic Area on 6 November 2009 when he refused to find exceptional circumstances under s.45(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 so as to disregard the termination of the licence by non-payment of the renewal fee.

2. The factual background appears from the documents and is as follows:

(i) Since 2002 the Appellants have been the holder of an operator’s licence authorising one vehicle. They elected to pay the licence fee annually, with the relevant date being 31 August.

(ii) On 30 July 2009 the Appellants were sent a reminder that payment of the fee (£14) was due on 31 August 2009. It was pointed out that failure to pay would result in automatic termination of the licence. No payment was received and on 21 September the Traffic Area Office informed the Appellants that their licence had terminated. In the meantime Mr John Moore wrote in on 17 September and stated that they had been very busy and had forgotten about the licence. He had telephoned the Traffic Area Office when he had remembered and had been told to write in with an explanation. A second letter on 24 September was to similar effect. Renewal had completely slipped his mind: he said that he could have blamed the failure on the post office but had not tried to do so.

(iii) On 6 November 2009 the Traffic Commissioner considered the papers and decided that there were no exceptional circumstances so as to enable him to direct that the termination be disregarded.

(iv) On 16 November 2009 Mr Moore sent a notice of appeal to the Tribunal. He accepted that he had been at fault. He had put the reminder to one side and had forgotten about it. He realised that it had not been dealt with on 13 September and immediately posted the renewal notice with a cheque. It was a genuine oversight. He said that having to apply for a new licence would be a heavy burden financially.

3. The Appellants did not appear on the hearing of the appeal and requested the Tribunal to deal with it in their absence.

4. We have carefully considered the papers and have to say that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision cannot be faulted. Forgetfulness does not constitute “exceptional circumstances” and accordingly he was unable to disregard the termination. We agree with his decision. The appeal is dismissed.

Hugh Carlisle QC

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

26 January 2010