Traffic Commissioner (TC) Simon Evans is to reconsider his decisions of revoking the two-vehicle licence held by Carlisle-based Philip Thomson and disqualifying him as a Transport Manager indefinitely, following an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
The TC made the revocation and disqualification orders on the grounds that Mr Thomson no longer met the requirement of good repute, after he failed to attend a Golborne Public Inquiry (PI).
It was a condition of his licence that his vehicles should be kept at the three operating centres specified on the licence.
Following complaints from members of the public about where the vehicles were being parked, the Office Traffic Commissioner (OTC) wrote to him saying that the TC was considering the revocation of his licence because he was using an unauthorised operating centre. Mr Thomson signed an undertaking not to park away from specified operating centres, but the TC was not content with that and decided to hold a PI.
Prior to the PI, Mr Thomson provided a letter of representations to the TC and some accompanying documents. The letter said that he would not be attending due to circumstances beyond his control. He took issue with factual aspects of the statement of a Traffic Examiner and disputed the photographs which the Traffic Examiner produced.
He explained that he had parked the vehicles in unauthorised places because of difficult personal circumstances – the floods in Carlisle in December 2015 had forced him out of his home and into temporary accommodation for a lengthy period. This had caused considerable disruption for him, both personally and professionally. He apologised to members of the public for the inconveniences caused by his actions which were out of character.
In a short, written decision, the TC concluded that Mr Thomson had willfully neglected his responsibilities, flagrantly disregarded the terms of the licence and failed to engage with the regulatory process. Consequently, he decided that it was appropriate and proportionate to revoke the licence and to exclude Mr Thomson from the industry.
It was understandable that the TC was unimpressed by Mr Thomson’s decision not to attend the hearing. He was repeatedly advised in writing by the OTC that his attendance was very important. He ignored that clear advice and his view was that his presence at the PI would add nothing – that view was wrong.
However, the TC had overlooked the entirety of Mr Thomson’s written evidence. Mr Thomson had held a licence since 1998 with no previous regulatory history. He had put forward mitigating circumstances and he had expressed remorse to the TC.
As a matter of fairness, the TC ought to have given careful consideration to those matters in order to decide whether or not they should lead to loss of repute.
Consequently, it was appropriate to remit the case for reconsideration by the same TC.
