Neutral Citation Number: applied for

Appeal No. T/2010/41

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS

 

ON APPEAL from the DECISION of

Philip Brown Traffic Commissioner for the

South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area Dated 28 April 2010

 

 

 

Before: Hugh Carlisle QC Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Leslie Milliken Member of the Upper Tribunal

Stuart James Member of the Upper Tribunal

 

 

Appellant:

DARREN SMITH

T/a DMS SCAFFOLDING

 

 

 

Attendances:

For the Appellant: The Appellant in person, accompanied by his wife

 

 

Heard at: Victory House, 30-34 Kingsway, London, WC2B 6EX

Date of hearing: 12 August 2010

Date of decision: 25 August 2010

 

 

 

 

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal be DISMISSED and that the revocation of the licence take effect at 2359 hours on 10 December 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

SUBJECT MATTER: Financial Resources

 

CASES REFERRED TO: None

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

 

1. This was an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area on 28 April 2010 when he revoked the Appellant’s licence.

 

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

(i) The Appellant is the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising two vehicles.

(ii) On 22 September 2009 a vehicle examiner, Mr Geoff Soul, wrote to the Appellant stating that he had attempted to contact him by telephone and that he had spoken with him on 16 September. There had been no further response and Mr Soul requested the Appellant to attend at the VOSA enforcement office in Guildford and to bring with him various specified maintenance documents. A mobile telephone number was provided in case the Appellant had any questions.

(iii) The Appellant did not attend on the vehicle examiner and enquiries revealed that the specified vehicles were no longer taxed. On 9 March 2010 the Appellant was informed by letter that the Traffic Commissioner was concerned that there may have been a material change in the Appellant’s circumstances and that he required specified financial information to be supplied. The Appellant was warned that failure to comply within 21 days might result in revocation and was invited to make representations and to apply for a public inquiry to be convened.

(iv) There was no response by the Appellant and on 10 May 2010 he was informed that the Traffic Commissioner had revoked his licence on 28 April 2010.

(v) The Appellant then telephoned the Traffic Area Office and stated that he had not received the earlier letters. He was advised to appeal. He wrote in to say that the letter of 9 March had been “signed for by someone in the office which I share with other companies, unfortunately this was never passed on to me so I therefore had no knowledge of the letter”. He stated that if he had received the letter he would have acted straight away. He had recently set up a meeting with a vehicle examiner and he had not been told of the action taken by the Traffic Commissioner. This detail was repeated in the notice of appeal. Subsequently the Traffic Commissioner granted a stay.

 

3. The Appellant and his wife addressed us on the hearing of the appeal. We explained that the issue was whether they could show that the Traffic Commissioner had been plainly wrong in ordering revocation. They recognised that his conduct could not be faulted and that the failure to receive the letters had arisen as a result of the inadequacy of their own correspondence arrangements. We think that it is unnecessary for us to mention personal matters which the Appellant mentioned to us and that it is sufficient if we say that we are satisfied that he and his wife are eager to “get back on track”.

 

 

 

4. In the result, we dismiss the appeal but order that the revocation will not take effect until 2359 hours on Friday, 10 December 2010. This period of four months is intended to enable the Appellant to make a fresh application for a licence. (The period mentioned at the end of the hearing was three months, which was intended to give the Appellant sufficient time to apply for an interim licence. We subsequently realised that we had overlooked the fact that interim licences may only be granted after an application for a full licence has been made (see s.24(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995). Accordingly, we have added a further month to the period granted. The Appellant has permission to apply to the Tribunal for this period to be extended if it proves to be insufficient: it is not our wish that the Appellant be put out of work for want of a licence, so long as the requirements are met.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugh Carlisle QC

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

25 August 2010