Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for small & medium business.

Guide to Public Inquiries

Think for a moment what your operators licence is worth. The ultimate value will depend on how big your business is and how much it depends on its operators licence.

An operators licence for even a modest sized business is likely to be worth tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to the owner. Perhaps millions to a larger transport operator. Being called to a public inquiry means that the continuation of your operators licence, and even your whole business, is uncertain.

This guide aims to answer some of the basic questions you might have on public inquiries to enable you to better understand the process. Anyone called to public inquiry should take specialist legal advice without delay.

What is a Public Inquiry?

Traffic Commissioners decide who is granted an operators licence and also decides when a licence should be taken away or subject to other sanctions. Traffic Commissioners are the regulators of the goods and passenger road transport industry.

A public inquiry is a formal legal hearing where Traffic Commissioners hear evidence in a court room setting, listen to a case and then make decisions on how their powers should be used in any given case.

There are two main types of public inquiries. There are public inquiries for regulatory reasons. These are to consider taking disciplinary action against operators who are accused of breaking the rules. The other type is where the Traffic Commissioner decides on applications. These could be applications for new operator licences or where an existing licence holder wants to make changes to their licence.

 

What are the Traffic Commissioners’ Powers ?

In disciplinary cases, the Traffic Commissioner can decide to terminate the licence, suspend it or reduce the number of vehicles authorised.

Conditions can also be placed on your operators licence which can restrict the way you want to do business.

The Traffic Commissioner can also disqualify operators, transport managers and company directors for either a fixed period of time or indefinitely.

Where a new licence is being considered, the Traffic Commissioner decides whether to grant or refuse the application and whether conditions should be attached.

 

How do they use these powers ?

When exercising their powers, Traffic Commissioners have to follow the law and act in the public interest. During the public inquiry hearing, the Traffic Commissioner has to follow a fair procedure and follow natural justice.

The guiding principles for decision making in most cases are road safety, fair competition within the transport industry and compliance with the law.

Interpreting these guiding principles gives the Traffic Commissioner significant discretion though in some circumstances decisions are mandatory. The Senior Traffic Commissioner produces guidelines in an effort to standardise decisions. The guidance is published as a number of statutory documents that can be found on the internet.

 

How do I know about a Public Inquiry ?

About a month before the public inquiry you will be sent a detailed letter called a call up letter. This sets out the date and time of the public inquiry and also details of the law, evidence and issues that will be considered.

Sometimes you will receive other papers with the call up letter or sometimes these will follow a short time later. Upon receiving the call up letter you should decide whether to take legal advice.

If you are not available on the date set for the public inquiry then you have the right to request an adjournment. However, it is only in exceptional circumstances than an adjournment will be allowed, such as if you have medical reasons for not being able to attend or if you are out of the country at the time. You would need to send the Traffic Commissioner firm evidence and any request must be made as early as possible.

 

What is the likely outcome ?

The outcome very much depends on the facts of each case. All you can do is address the specific issues in your case.

The potential outcomes are very serious. In a regulatory / disciplinary hearing, this could potentially be revocation of your operators licence and a disqualification order preventing you from applying for or holding a licence in future. Even lesser outcomes such as conditions or reducing your vehicle fleet can have significant long-lasting consequences.

The annual statistics published for the outcome of cases in 2013 shows :

 

Can I appeal the decision?

Traffic Commissioner decisions are very hard to appeal. This is because they will only be set aside on narrow grounds. You would need to persuade an appeal court that the Traffic Commissioner had made an error on the law, had acted unfairly or was so plainly wrong that the decision cannot be justified.

Because decisions are so hard to overturn, you should see the public inquiry as your one and only chance to put your case.

If your public inquiry does not turn out well, you should get advice quickly.

 

What is the procedure at Public Inquiry?

After you arrive at the venue on the day of the public inquiry the Traffic Commissioner’s clerk will come and speak to you and take your details.

In the court room, when the hearing starts the Traffic Commissioner will introduce the hearing and make any preliminary remarks.

Your solicitor will have the opportunity to address the Traffic Commissioner. After that DVSA (formerly called VOSA) will present their evidence if they are involved in your case. Your solicitor will cross examine DVSA and probe their evidence, this is often a very crucial part of the case. The Traffic Commissioner will then ask questions of DVSA.

In certain cases there may be other witnesses giving evidence against you. These could be police officers, staff from other government agencies and sometimes other operators, drivers or transport managers. In cases involving environmental issues, members of the public may be involved.

Once the evidence against you has been heard, it is then your opportunity as the operator (or applicant if a new application is involved) to present your case.

Once all the evidence has been presented to the Traffic Commissioner, your solicitor (or you if you are not represented) will make a closing statement. This will normally involve a summary of the evidence that has been heard, legal argument and an explanation of your case. This is the moment to persuade the Traffic Commissioner, the closing submission is very important.

 

What kind of evidence is involved ?

The most obvious type of evidence is oral testimony from witnesses. You don’t usually take an oath at a public inquiry but everyone is under a duty to tell the truth and failing to do so is a criminal offence. Every public inquiry is tape recorded.

As well as witness evidence, there is likely to be a lot of evidence in written form. A few weeks before your public inquiry the Traffic Commissioner’s office will forward you a set of papers called the Traffic Commissioner’s brief. The brief is effectively a copy of the file that the Traffic Commissioner has on your case. Briefs can sometimes be large, sometimes running to several hundred pages.

The Traffic Commissioner’s brief will include items such as DVSA / VOSA reports, records on you and copies of evidence collected during the course of an investigation.

 

What evidence should I put forward?

This is where you need to plan carefully and get good advice.

There are many examples of the type of evidence that could be relevant to your case. Whether evidence is relevant is one thing, what evidence will help you succeed in your case is a separate question and one where specialist advice is necessary.

Pieces of evidence are only the basic building blocks of your case. Whether and how evidence is put is a matter to approach very carefully. Sometimes there are reasons for not putting forward evidence that appears helpful to you and sometimes, conversely, there are good reasons to put forward evidence that on the face of it doesn’t look helpful to your case. There are sometimes strategic considerations.

Some of the different types of evidence that could be included in your case are:

Witnesses in person

Witness statements

Vehicle records and certificates

Maintenance records

Tachographs and driver records

Hand books

Written instructions to drivers

Websites

Computer records

CVs

Training certificates

Photographs

Business plan

Expert reports

Membership certificates

Letters and references

Computer records

Bank statements

Employment records

Financial records / tax returns

Planning permission

Government guidelines

... and many much more.

Do I need a solicitor ?

The letter calling you to the public inquiry stronlgy recommends that you take legal advice and consider representation.

The simple fact is that a public inquiry is a very serious legal hearing. The effect of decisions made at a public inquiry are potentially far more serious than rulings of other courts and tribunals and could see you being put out of business.

The cost of getting good representation at a public inquiry will represent only a small fraction of your turnover and the downside of getting this wrong is potentially devastating.

 

A Few Words About Our Service

My firm specialised in transport law and I deal with a large number of public inquiries each year in all parts of the UK.

I have been involved in transport law since the late 1990s and it is what I specialise in. Directly dealing with public inquiries is about 80% of my work and I regularly appear at public inquiries in all parts of England, Wales and Scotland. I therefore have a significant breadth of experience and expertise to help with your public inquiry. My clients enjoy a high level of success.

Whoever represents you at your public inquiry, you must be confident that you can work with them and that they understand fully how to run your case successfully.

 

If you’re facing a public inquiry and don’t know what to do, please call us now for a free, no obligation telephone discussion and let us explain how we can help you.  You can call us on 0800 1777 522, contact us by email or use our free enquiry form.  

Notifying the Traffic Commissioner
Transport Working Time Regulations

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.