Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Preliminary Hearings

A preliminary hearing is a type of formal legal hearing held by the Traffic Commissioner as an alternative to a full pulic inquiry.  They are usually held in the public inquiry rooms at the Traffic Commissioner's office but they are private hearings, not open to the public or the press.  If you've been called to a preliminary hearing then you should take legal advice from a transport solicitor.  There are potentialy serious consequences involved and a good transport solicitor can advise you on what's involved, what you need to do and if necessary represent you at the hearing itself. 

Types Of Preliminary Hearing 

They are usually less formal than a public inquiry and can sometimes be short.  There are several types of preliminary hearing depending on what the purpose of the hearing is.  The types of preliminary hearing are :

1. Preliminary Hearing to Consider if Disciplinary Action Might be Necessary 

This type of preliminary hearing is held to enable the Traffic Commissioner to decide whether it is necessary to hold a full formal public inquiry.  This is the most common type of preliminary hearing.  Usually the Traffic Commissioner will have concerns which may lead to disciplinary action against the operator licence, but the Commissioner is not yet sure whether or not a full public inquiry is necessary.   This therefore gives you an opportunity to put your case forward to persuade the Traffic Commissioner that further action is not necessary.  A transport solicitor will be able to help you prepare for the hearing and how to put forward a case to avert any further action.  What this involves in practice will depend very much on the issues involved and the facts surrounding your case.  

2. Preliminary Hearing to Consider an Operator's Licence Application 

Many applications for new operators licences or for variation to an existing licence hit upon problems.  There are strict criteria that apply to the granting of operator licence applications.  Where there are questions over whether the criteria are met or doubts over goods repute or finances for example, the Traffic Commissioner may decide that the best thing to do is call a preliminary hearing.  The purpose is to deal with outstanding concerns face to face with the operator, rather than go through the stringent process of a full public inquiry.  Again, the preliminary hearing should be seen as an opportunity to deal with potential problems before matters escalate to the stage of a full public inquiry.  

3. Preliminary Hearing as a Directions Hearing

This is the less frequent type of preliminary hearing.  This type will happen as a pre-cursor to a full public inquiry, once a public inquiry has been called.  The idea is that this type of hearing is to deal with points of procedure before the full public inquiry takes place.  Examples of this might be where there is a discussion about what witnesses there will be at the full public inquiry and what kind of issues the Traffic Commissioner wants to see evidence on specifically.  This then avoids delays or misunderstanding once the main public inquiry gets underway.

What Happens at a Preliminary Hearing ?  

It all depends on what the issues are and what type of case it is as to what happens exactly.  Every case is different.  Generally, the hearing is far less formal than a public inquiry.  It will often take the form of a discussion with the Traffic Commissioner.  Evidence is not formally set out in the same way at a public inquiry, but records, documents and verbal explanations will be taken into account.  The Traffic Commissioner will listen to submissions from your solicitor and then make a decision at the end of the hearing.    

What Decisions Can be Taken at a Preliminary Hearing ?

If there are disciplinary issues involved, then the Traffic Commissioner can decide whether to call a full public inquiry for another day.  The Traffic Commissioner only has the power to revoke an operators licence or impose other disciplinary sanctions at a full public inquiry.  Alternatively the Traffic Commissioner can decide at a preliminary hearing that no further action is necessary or conclude with formal written warning.  With preliminary hearings dealing with applications, the Commissioner has the power to grant an application (with or without conditions) or call a full public inquiry.  

How Many Preliminary Hearings Take Place 

Until very recently, Preliminary Hearings were rare.  The Traffic Commissioners have made a conscious decision to hold more preliminary hearings as a way to reserve full public inquiries only for the more serious or complicated cases.  The intention is that many cases dealt with at preliminary hearings can be sorted out without a full public inquiry being needed.  

Annual statistics for the number of preliminary hearings were only published for the first time in 2016.  These show that in the year from 2015 to 2016 there were 491 Traffic Commissioner preliminary hearings held in England, Scotland and Wales.  These break down as 2 in the Wales Traffic Area; 60 in the East of England Traffic Area at Cambridge; 63 in the North East in Leeds; 130 in the North West at Golborne, Warrington; 114 in the London and South East Traffic Area at Eastbourne; 7 in the West Midlands at Edgbaston, Birmingham; 63 in the Western Traffic Area at Bristol and 52 in Scotland at Edinburgh.  

Getting Legal Advice 

Preliminary hearings are formal legal hearings with potentially significant legal and commercial consequences for you and your business.  In all cases it is sensible and usually necessary to have some good legal advice and expert help preparing and presenting your case.  The more advice and professional input from a specialist you receive the better the final outcome will be.  

CONTACT US ABOUT A PRELIMINARY HEARING  

Please get in touch with us without charge or obligation to discuss your case with an expert transport solicitor and so we can give you an idea about how we can 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 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.