Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Appealing Traffic Commissioner Decisions

There is a right of appeal against decisions made by a Traffic Commissioner. Appeals are heard by a specialist appeal tribunal called the “Upper Tribunal” (it was previously called the Transport Tribunal).

The Upper Tribunal sits in London for appeals from cases in England: Cardiff for appeals brough by Welsh operators; Edinburgh for cases in Scotland and Belfast for Northern Ireland.  Appeals are heard by a panel of one appeal judge plus two panel members. At least one of the panel members comes from a background in transport and is there to bring practical knowledge of the transport industry to the tribunal’s decision making.

If you're not happy with a decision of a Traffic Commissioner then you should take legal advice as soon as possible from a specialist transport law solicitor.  Appeals are very complex and delicate matters and strict procedures are time limits apply.  

What decisions can be appealed ?

The Upper Tribunal can hear appeals against the following decisions of a Traffic Commissioner:

(a) Revocation, suspension or curtailment of an operator’s licence;

(b) Disqualification of an operator licence holder or director;

(c) Disqualification of a Transport Manager;

(d) Refusal to grant an operator’s licence;

(e) Conditions imposed on an operator’s licence or refusal to remove conditions;

(f) Certain decisions in relation to an operating centre;

(g) Financial penalties in the case of PSV operators.

Who can appeal ?

Depending on the facts of the case, the following may have the right to lodge an appeal :

(a) An operator licence holder;

(b) Director of a company holding an operator’s licence;

(c) A transport manager;

(d) Anyone disqualified from holding an operator’s licence;

(e) In certain circumstances, people who have objected to the grant of an application.

Is there a time limit ?

The time limit for putting in an appeal is 28 days from the date of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision (this is from the date of the decision, not the date you might have received the decision).

In certain limited circumstances, the Tribunal can accept an appeal, even though it was made out of time. The Tribunal will need to be satisfied about the reasons for late appeal.

The appeal process

An appeal form has to be filled in and submitted to the offices of the Upper Tribunal in London for each appellant.

The appeal form must include your grounds of appeal more about about grounds of appeal further down). It is often better to have a separate document setting out your grounds of appeal because space in the form itself is quite limited.

The grounds of appeal must be received by the Upper Tribunal Office within 28 days of the date of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision. You should also send a copy of the notice of appeal to the office of the Traffic Commissioner who made the decision you are appealing against.

Upon receiving the appeal forms, the Upper Tribunal office will allocate a case number and acknowledge receipt of the appeal. The Upper Tribunal office will then obtain all relevant documents from the Traffic Commissioner’s office and prepare an appeal bundle. The bundle will include a full transcript of the Public Inquiry as well as every other document in the Traffic Commissioner’s possession that is relevant. Appeal bundles can be very large and often amount to 500 pages or more.

A copy of the appeal bundle will be sent out to you a few weeks before the appeal hearing is to take place. You will also be notified of the date and time for the appeal hearing.

The appeal hearing

At the appeal hearing, it is customary (though not compulsory) to hand in beforehand what is called a “skeleton argument”. This document is essentially an outline of what your case is. If you instruct a solicitor or barrister, they will spend quite a lot of time perfecting the skeleton argument. It is a very important document.

The hearing itself will be heard by an appeal judge along with two other tribunal members. One of the non-judicial members will have some background in transport.

It is important to understand that an appeal hearing is not a re-hearing of the original case.

The appeal hearing is a review of all the evidence heard at the public inquiry. No new evidence can be considered, only the evidence that was at the public inquiry. The transcript is an important part of any appeal because it is a complete record of everything that was said at the public inquiry.

What are acceptable grounds of appeal ?

Valid grounds of appeal are quite limited. There is a high hurdle in being successful at an appeal.

It is not about persuading the Tribunal that the decision was wrong. You have to go beyond that an persuade them that there was something wrong with the process from which the traffic commissioner made the decision or that the decision was so wrong as to be unjustifiable.

It is not sufficient that you disagree with the Traffic Commissioner’s decision, even if the Tribunal themselves disagree with the Traffic Commissioner’s decision.

The legal test for a successful appeal is that by reason of fact or law, an appeal tribunal is compelled to reach a different view to the Traffic Commissioner.

What this means is that the Appeal Tribunal must not just disagree with the Traffic Commissioner’s decision but they must find that his decision was “plainly wrong” to the extent that the decision has to be set aside.

If the Traffic Commissioner has carefully considered all relevant facts and has conducted a fair public inquiry and his decision is supported by the facts and law, then the Appeal Tribunal will not set aside his decision, even if the Tribunal members themselves believe that the Traffic Commissioner reached the wrong conclusion.

Examples of what might be successful grounds for appeal are as follows:

(a) The Traffic Commissioner interpreted the law incorrectly or applied it incorrectly to the facts;

(b) The decision was plainly disproportionate;

(c) The Traffic Commissioner misunderstood some significant facts of the case;

(d) Some important facts were not properly considered by the Traffic Commissioner;

(e) The Traffic Commissioner’s explanation for the decision was insufficient to justify the conclusions;

(f) The Traffic Commissioner was biased;

(g) The proceedings were in some way unfair, for example, you weren’t able to say all that you wanted to say or something arose during the course of the Public Inquiry that you weren’t expecting and which meant you were unfairly caught unprepared.

Can the decision be put on hold while the appeal is heard ?

When the Traffic Commissioner makes a decision, that decision will either come into effect immediately or at some specified date into the future.

For example, with a revocation decision, it is customary to allow somewhere between 4-6 weeks (it could be more, it could be less) between the date of the decision and the date on which the revocation comes into effect. The problem is that an appeal hearing typically takes 4-5 months to be dealt with.

Once a revocation has taken effect, the business is normally by that stage lost forever and the appeal is therefore, in a practical sense, meaningless.

To get round this problem, there is a process that allows an operator to apply to the Traffic Commissioner for the decision to be “stayed” until the appeal hearing has taken place. This effectively means that the Traffic Commissioner’s decision is put on hold to allow the appeal hearing to take place first.

An application has to be made to the Traffic Commissioner who made the decision for the stay. An application to stay has to meet certain criteria before the Traffic Commissioner will grant it.

If the Traffic Commissioner refuses to grant a stay, then you have a right to apply to the Upper Tribunal direct for the Upper Tribunal judge to grant a stay.

Applications for a stay are made on paper. There is no hearing. Therefore, it is important that a persuasive and well presented case is put forward in letter format to the Traffic Commissioner and/or the Upper Tribunal to ensure that a stay is granted.

Stays are discretionary and are not always granted.

Appealing higher if your appeal is unsuccessful

It is only on very narrow grounds that a further appeal can be made if you disagree with the decision of the Upper Tribunal. A further appeal is to the Court of Appeal. The grounds for appealing to the Court of Appeal must include that there has been an error of law by the Upper Tribunal and/or a further appeal would include a matter of public interest.

It is very difficult to make further appeal after the Upper Tribunal and that is reflected in the fact that there have only been a handful or so of commercial transport related cases that have gone to the Court of Appeal in the last 10 years.

Contact us About Your Transport Law Problems

Please get in touch with us without charge or obligation.

Contact us today and we'll give you an idea about how we might be able to help you. We will be very glad to talk through your situation and review your papers free of charge to help you to make an informed decision about what to do.

You can call us any time on 0800 1777 522 or alternatively you can email us or make a Free Online Enquiry


Call us for free on 0800 1777 522


Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid Input

 


We advise and represent transport businesses throughout the whole of the UK in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland

Uk





Latest Blogs

It is easy to fall foul of technical aspects of operator licencing. Whether of goods vehicles or passenger service vehicles. One commonly seen relates to disc loaning or licence lending.An operator is...
As with many applications or ‘regulatory’ public inquiries, the Traffic Commissioner (TC) has before her or him a set of papers prepared by their case worker. The fact a public inquiry has been conven...
We were instructed by a business primarily involved in farming and authorised to operate six large goods vehiclesThe public inquiry was called before the Traffic Commissioner to consider the operator’...

Latest Transport Law

Transport Law
It is easy to fall foul of technical aspects of operator licencing. Whether of goods vehicles or passenger service vehicles. One commonly seen relates to disc loaning or licence lending.

An operator is generally not permitted to allow other businesses to ‘use’ the O Licence. And to deliberately do so would likely lead to revocation of the licence, and possible disqualification (perhaps indefinitely) of the legal entity or person behind the licence from holding or even applying for a licence.

Some operators, while not acting with deliberate intent, inadvertently blur the lines of who is ‘using’ or operating the vehicles. One such case was an operator (a limited company) in the North-East traffic area that we represented at the Leeds OTC public inquiry (PI) room.

Our client successfully ran ( and continues to do so) a niche business with highly bespoke heavy goods vehicles. It used several legal entities, including limited companies, to conduct its well-established business. It’s not unfair to say the business model was unusual and complex. (Although the Traffic Commissioner (TC) is not a regulator of businesses, to the extent that matters touch on O Licencing, he/she has regulatory powers to exercise against operators. ) An additional factor was that it involved a restricted licence, meaning that the vehicles could only carry the goods of the entity with the licence.

Without going into all the detail, the operator was using vehicles in such a way that raised the question of whether other legal entities were using the licence, or otherwise unlawfully benefitting from it, and carrying the goods of another entity (Who is the ‘user’ of the vehicle and the true operator can be very complex, and is determined by multiple factors).

We gave our comprehensive legal opinion on all matters that would foreseeably be raised at the hearing. This included urgent advice on an immediate change to how the company was using its vehicles; the company’s maintenance and compliance documentation; and how a different approach would be needed, particularly in respect of brake testing, daily walkarounds and defect reporting/remedying. The company was keen to learn and was receptive to our advice. This involved a site visit, email correspondence, and video-conference/telephone meetings.

All requested maintenance documentation and a business model was submitted in advance to the OTC.

At the hearing the company was able to demonstrate that it was operating vehicles within the authorised parameters. It had learned much in the build-up to the PI and was willing to implement advice - even as late as the day of the PI. The TC conducted a balancing exercise. He concluded there had been a falling-short of O Licence standards in respect of vehicle use and maintenance, and that the company was late to take on professional advice. On the other hand, new systems were in place and dramatic improvements made. OLAT courses had either been booked or completed and the services of a transport consultant were engaged. The almost inevitable regulatory action in this case was limited to a short curtailment involving some vehicles, and undertakings added to the licence. The client considered this a significantly good result considering the consequences of losing the licence or other kinds of regulatory action – which potentially had been on the cards based on the TCs public inquiry brief.
Transport Law
As with many applications or ‘regulatory’ public inquiries, the Traffic Commissioner (TC) has before her or him a set of papers prepared by their case worker. The fact a public inquiry has been convened means there are concerns. The papers alone cannot determine the TCs decision—one way or the other. It is imperative therefore that applicants or licence holders prepare their case thoroughly. If prepared properly, it will help assist the TC to make a favourable decision. If not, the TC may conclude that the case is as it appears on the papers – or even worse.

We recently represented a company that applied for an O Licence (the applicant). The matter was brought to public inquiry because of serious concerns that the new company was either a front for a company that had gone into administration, and/or a phoenix arrangement was taking place; transport manager (TM) considerations; and the application form had not been completed correctly—causing an appreciable misrepresentation of the facts (The simple filling out of the application form is the first opportunity the TC has to see anything about the applicant, including whether they are trustworthy!)

After taking instructions, we could see there was plenty of scope to prepare a strong case for the grant of the application. The applicant’s connection to a company that had gone into administration: any links were tenuous and superficial. There was no phoenix arrangement because there were no substantive connections between the two entities, or relevant individuals. The incorrectly filled-out application form was a genuine error (even though it appeared otherwise).

On the professional competence issue, we advised that a replacement TM was necessary. The originally nominated TM was, in our opinion, not suitable in this case. A TM may have the qualification, but depending on the facts, more is required, including experience, actual knowledge and other capabilities. Our client accepted our advice and contracted another TM, contingent on the grant of the licence.

Most, if not all, of the TCs case directions were fully adhered to. Documentary evidence and representations were submitted two weeks in advance.

Most of the work for the inquiry was completed beforehand. That just left the hearing. We advised on what the hearing would entail and how best to present first-person evidence. Hearings can be particularly stressful, especially if things are left last minute, or not addressed properly. In the end, this hearing was fairly straightforward and relatively short. The TC was satisfied that the evidence submitted adequately addressed concerns. Further evidence and submissions were presented at the hearing. Assurances were given, including a willingness to have conducted an independent audit. As at the date of the hearing, it was clear that the applicant had a good knowledge of O Licence compliance requirements and of their specific kind of haulage work. The application was granted with immediate effect with authorisation for several HGVs.
Transport Law
We were instructed by a business primarily involved in farming and authorised to operate six large goods vehicles

The public inquiry was called before the Traffic Commissioner to consider the operator’s repute. Revocation, suspension, curtailment of the licence, and possible disqualification, were also under consideration (under sections 26(1)(b), 26(c)(iii), 26(e) and 26(f) and 35 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

Background: the operator (like many operators) had not understood the consequences of changing its legal entity. In this case from a sole trader to limited company. And that, generally, in such circumstances, a licence must be applied for in the name of the new legal entity.

Over the period of some months, the operator had started to run some of the business through the limited company; some thought the sole tradership. Meanwhile, one of its HGVs was stopped by DVSA at a roadside encounter. The vehicle was unfortunately given an ‘S’ marked prohibition for significant failings in its braking system. After questioning the operator, the DVSA concluded that there had been an outright change of legal entity. There were also some other less-significant shortcomings, relating to finances, daily walkaround checks, and paperwork issues .

Together, these were serious failings to overcome at PI. Much would depend on how responsive to our advice the operator and transport manager would be.

We were instructed in good time, and promptly advised on all relevant matters. DVSA had concluded there had been a categoric legal entity change, but we were able to give our opinion on this somewhat nuanced area of law. We advised that this could easily lead to the revocation of the licence, but not necessarily. A robust response would be needed in all areas and any shortcomings remedied as soon as practicably possible.

After several meetings, our client and the TM were clear on what needed to be done before the PI. We also advised on what to expect at the PI itself, including what questions might be asked. The client was responsive and we managed to adhere to the OTC deadlines. During our instructions, other matters emerged—ones not raised in the TCs PI Brief papers. We advised on these also to pre-empt further potential questioning.

The hearing went as near-to-plan as could be expected. The operator and TM were well prepared for the hearing. They were able to fully satisfy the TC on most matters raised. The TC accepted our final submissions that there had never been any attempt to deceive or gain an unfair commercial advantage (there had been no such advantage ) and that any mistakes were inadvertent. We’d submitted supporting evidence in advance.

The simple decision was that the TC curtailed the margin on the licence for two weeks. This resulted in no material disadvantage to the operator. On a balance of probabilities, the TC was satisfied that the business would be compliant as the holder of a goods vehicle operator licence. The effect was that the operator was now in a position to continue using its O’licence without interruption, and run its well-established and successful farming business.