Croft Travel Lancashire Ltd (t/a Croft Travel)

On 15 February 2023, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) informed the Appellant operator that it had been brought to the Traffic Commissioner’s attention that the operator had no transport manager specified on its public service vehicle (PSV) operator’s licence. The letter went on to inform the operator that the Commissioner was considering revoking the operator’s licence and set 1 March 2023 as the date by which any representations and request for a public inquiry were to be made. The letter added that the operator’s representations could include a request to add a new transport manager to the operator’s licence.

On 15 February 2023, the operator submitted to the OTC application forms for Mr F Saad and Mr M Evans to be specified on its licence as designated transport managers. On 23 February 2023, the OTC wrote to the operator to inform it that the information supplied for both Mr F Saad and Mr M Evans was incomplete. The operator was given until 9 March 2023 to supply the missing information. Both individuals emailed the OTC in an attempt to supply the missing information.

On 14 March 2023, the OTC wrote to the operator as follows:

On 21 March 2023, both Mr Saad and Mr Evans withdrew their offers to act as the operator’s designated transport managers.

On 29 March 2023, the OTC emailed the operator, noting the recent withdrawal of Mr Saad and Mr Evans, and reminded the operator of the 9 April 2023 deadline set in its letter of 14 March 2023.

On 30 March 2023, the operator submitted a fresh transport manager application to the OTC, in respect of a Mr B Ford.

On 4 April 2023, the OTC wrote to the operator, informing it that the transport manager application in respect of Mr B Ford was incomplete. The section of the OTC application form which asks a prospective transport manager how many hours will be spent on transport manager duties each week had not been completed. The OTC also noted that Mr Ford would, if he became the operator’s designated transport manager, be the designated transport manager for two operators, and had also applied for an operator’s licence in his own right. The OTC sought confirmation that Mr Ford would be able effectively and continuously to manage the transport activities of the operators for whom he intended to be designated transport manager. The deadline for supplying a complete application, and answering the OTC’s queries, was set at 18 April 2023.

On 21 April 2023, the operator’s director, Ms Hughes, jointly with Mr Ford, responded to the OTC’s letter of 4 April and attached a completed transport manager application form. Having explained that she had been away and had only just accessed her emails, Ms Hughes went on state that Mr Ford would devote 20 hours each week to his transport manager duties for the operator, “only visiting his own operating centre a couple of times a week”, and intended to proceed with his own application for an operator’s licence.

On 26 April 2023, the Traffic Commissioner revoked the operator’s standard PSV operator’s licence. No public inquiry was held beforehand. The Commissioner’s decision letter read as follows:

An internal OTC memorandum of 15 May 2023 revealed that the Traffic Commissioner had not authorised an extension of the operator’s period of grace to 18 April 2023 nor was the Commissioner made aware, when he decided to revoke the operator’s licence, of the operator’s communication of 21 April 2023 (although, we observe, the Commissioner’s decision letter states that the communication was ‘noted’). Insofar as relevant, the memorandum read as follows:

The operator’s notice of appeal to the Upper Tribunal, drafted by the operator’s director, Rhianna Hughes, argues that the operator’s licence was revoked unfairly for the following reasons:

when Ms Hughes became a director of the operator on 15 February 2023, there was a full change of staff, and she arranged for a transport manager to “apply for the licence”;

upon learning that the Traffic Commissioner had doubts about the competence of her initial proposed transport managers, she “immediately sought out employment of a new transport manager who applied to the licence”. This was all done before 9 April 2023 which led Ms Hughes to believe that no further period of grace would be necessary;

unfortunately, a section was “missed” in Mr Ford’s transport manager’s application. The Commissioner’s questions which were answered by email on 21 April 2023;

“the matter of financial standing is still ongoing as when the previous director changed all of the company details over he added the significant person of control as a firm and not an individual”. This prevented Ms Hughes from opening a bank account in the company’s name and she was in correspondence with Companies House about rectification of the mistake. Once that is done, “I will be able to send over the full financial standing for Croft Travel (Lancashire) Ltd”.

The hearing of the operator’s appeal was listed to begin at 2 p.m. By 2:10 p.m. no representative of the operator had arrived at the venue. The Upper Tribunal’s clerk rang the telephone contact number provided by the operator, but the call went unanswered. The clerk rang again at 2:20 p.m. but, again, to no avail. To date, the operator has not contacted the Upper Tribunal to explain why no representative attended a hearing which the operator had itself requested.

Rule 38 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 provides as follows:

We are satisfied that the operator was duly notified of the hearing. Indeed, the operator’s director had informed the Upper Tribunal that the director intended to attend the hearing. Given the absence of any explanation for the operator’s failure to attend and that the operator, which is a commercial entity and thus responsible for securing its own interests, had a reasonable opportunity to put its case in writing, we considered it to be in the interests of justice to hear this appeal in the absence of a representative for the operator.

Section 17(1) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“1981 Act”) provides as follows:

Subsequent provisions of section 17 of the 1981 Act provide the legal basis for what, conventionally, is known as a ‘period of grace’:

Article 13.1 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 provides as follows:

In Blackmur t/a IJB Transport [2021] UKUT 0312 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal held as follows (emphasis in original):

The Traffic Commissioner is required to revoke an operator’s standard PSV operator’s licence if the operator’s designated transport manager no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(3) of the 1981 Act. The requirement to revoke must be read as extending to the case of an operator which no longer has a designated transport manager.

The operator’s grounds of appeal do not clearly identify any mistake made by the Traffic Commissioner in revoking the operator’s licence. However, the grounds may intend to argue that the Traffic Commissioner unfairly led the operator to believe that, once the operator had submitted a new designated transport manager application, there was no need to request a further period of grace (a period during which the operator would be permitted to operate without a designated transport manager). We shall approach the operator’s grounds of appeal on that basis.

Whether the operator’s period of grace expired on 9 April 2023 or 18 April 2023, it cannot be disputed that, at the expiry date, the operator had failed to submit a complete application form for authorisation of a designated transport manager. The form submitted on 30 March 2023, which was signed by Mr Ford and Ms Hughes, director of the operator, did not answer the form’s standard question about the number of hours that, each week, the prospective transport manager would devote to managing the operator’s transport operations. Since all other sections of the form were completed, and this application followed an earlier application that was also incomplete, this omission cannot be considered an oversight. The operator says the question was ‘missed’ but does not explain why. Given Mr Ford’s other commitments, as documented in the evidence, it is more likely than not that the omission was intentional.

The operator’s director, Ms Hughes, argues that, upon submitting the transport manager application in respect of Mr Ford, she assumed no further period of grace was required. However, we find that she had knowingly submitted an incomplete transport manager application form. Ms Hughes could not reasonably have believed that a complete application had been submitted, that is one which was likely to lead to the authorisation of Mr Ford to act as the operator’s transport manager. We therefore reject the argument that the operator’s course of dealing with the OTC unfairly led the operator to believe that no further period of grace was required upon the expiry (on 9 or 18 April 2023) of the period of grace previously allowed. The operator could not reasonably have expected the Traffic Commissioner to authorise a transport manager to act as such in response to an application form that failed to address the important issue of the amount of time that Mr Ford intended to devote to managing the operator’s transport activities. We therefore dismiss this appeal.

Finally, we apologise for the delay in giving this decision. Initially, due to an administrative oversight this case was not marked on the Upper Tribunal’s case management system as ready for decision. And, subsequently, the judge was absent from duties while recovering from injuries sustained in an accident.