Neutral Citation Number : [2012] UKUT 35 (AAC)

Appeal No.  T/2011/66

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS

 

ON APPEAL from the DECISION of

Beverley Bell, Traffic Commissioner for the

North Western Traffic Area

Dated 18 October 2011

 

 

 

Before: Hugh Carlisle QC  Judge of the Upper Tribunal

George Inch Member of the Upper Tribunal

John Robinson Member of the Upper Tribunal

 

 

Appellant:

DAVID EDWARD BEALES

 

 

 

Attendances: The Appellant in person

 

 

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

Date of hearing: 18 January 2012

Date of decision: 24 January 2012

 

 

 

DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

It is hereby ordered that the appeal be DISMISSED with the revocation of the licence not to take effect until 2359 hours on 18 April 2012 and with the Appellant being granted liberty to apply to extend this period..

 

SUBJECT MATTER:  Material change

 

CASES REFERRED TO:  None

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR DECISION

 

 

 

1. This was an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North Western Traffic Area on 18 October 2011 when she revoked the Appellant’s licence with immediate effect.

 

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

(i) Since 1998 the Appellant has been the holder of a restricted licence authorising one vehicle.  In early 2011 he was sent a cheque refunding part of his licence fees.  The letter and cheque were undelivered and returned to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.

(ii) On 29 March 2011 the Office of the Traffic Commissioner wrote to the Appellant and asked him to state whether he still required an operator’s licence.  He was also asked to give his correct address if the address being used was incorrect and whether he required the cheque to be re-issued.  No reply to this letter was received.

(iii) On 10 May 2011 the caseworker recommended that the Traffic Commissioner should send a letter to the Appellant indicating that she was proposing to revoke the licence under s.26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, with an invitation to the Appellant to apply for the matter to be considered at a public inquiry.  The Traffic Commissioner agreed to this proposal and the letter was sent on 25 July 2011.  There was no response and on 18 October 2011 the Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence with immediate effect.  This decision was notified to the Appellant on 20 October 2011.

(iv) On or shortly before 7 November 2011 the Appellant telephoned the Office of the Traffic Commissioner and informed the caseworker that he  had been having problems with his mail.  His operating centre was at the back of a yard from which a big firm (JJ Logistics) had moved out at Christmas 2010.  Thereafter the postman had thought that the yard was empty and had given up delivering mail to the Appellant.  From time to time mail had been put into a shared post office box at the front of the yard but this had been vandalised.  The Appellant told the caseworker that in October he had found the letter dated 25 July 2011 “half-way down the road” and it was for this reason he was telephoning.  The case worker told him that his licence had already been revoked.  He was told to send an email explaining the position and this he did: the email is dated 7 November 2011.  The Appellant said that he had been in business for 17 years with a good record.  He had a young family and was dependant upon his licence for his livelihood. 

(v) The case worker invited the Traffic Commissioner to consider the position and she concluded on the same day that the order of revocation had been properly made and

 

 

could not be set aside.  She gave instructions that the Appellant should be invited to appeal in which event she would grant him a stay.  The Traffic Commissioner also indicated that if a new application for a licence were made she would be prepared to grant an interim licence if the requirements were met.  The Appellant was so informed by letter dated 8 November 2011 and a stay of the order of revocation was subsequently made.

 

3. The Appellant appeared on his own behalf on the hearing of the appeal and readily accepted that he had not been very clever about making arrangements to receive his post.  Although the big firm had moved out at Christmas 2010 the significance of this had not immediately dawned on him as he did not receive much post anyway.  He had been working very hard and had been concentrating on this and the needs of his family rather than on his postal arrangements.  He did eventually realise something was wrong when he found the letter dated 25 July 2011 in the road and it was this which prompted him to telephone in. 

 

4. Although we do not think that the Appellant is above criticism we have to say that overall he made a favourable impression on us.  We explained that we could not find that the Traffic Commissioner was wrong in making her order as all the evidence before her was one way.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  However, we agree with the sympathetic approach shown by the Traffic Commissioner and direct that the order of revocation should not take effect until 2359 hours on 18 April 2012, in order to enable the Appellant to make a new application for a licence and for the Traffic Commissioner to consider granting him an interim licence.  We also order that the Appellant have liberty to apply to the Tribunal in the event that more time is needed; but any such application will need to be supported by an explanation and should not be regarded as likely to result automatically in an extension of time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugh Carlisle QC

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

24 January 2012