Carmel Coaches Ltd, whose sole director is Anthony Hazell, is appealing against the decision of Traffic Commissioner (TC) Richard Turfitt to refuse its application for a new one-vehicle international O-Licence based in Bristol.
Mr Hazell proposed that he might also act as Transport Manager (TM), devoting 10 hours per week to those duties. In 2014 the company’s international licence for 40 vehicles was revoked owing to severe maintenance shortcomings. Mr Hazell was disqualified for 18 months from acting as a Director and TM. An appeal against those decisions was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal in 2014.
Carmel Coaches was granted an international licence for 15 vehicles in December 2016 after TC Kevin Rooney found that Mr Hazell’s good repute was restored. That licence was subsequently revoked for substantial maintenance shortcomings. The TC found that Mr Hazell had lost his good repute as a TM and disqualified him from acting as such until he re-took and passed the TM CPC examination.
An application for a new 10-vehicle international licence by the company, one of whose Directors and the TM was Mr Hazell, was refused by the TC. An application for a three-vehicle licence by Mr Hazell based at the company’s Okehampton premises was refused by the TC. That decision was upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal.
In his decision, TC Turfitt said that in his previous decision on Mr Hazell’s attempt to pursue an application as a sole trader in 2022, TC Rooney recorded that, even after the Upper Tribunal’s rejection of his appeal, he found Mr Hazell reluctant to embrace change and had given no demonstration that he was a changed person. TC Turfitt shared that view.
Mr Hazell claimed that his attendance to observe 36 Public Inquiries in the last six months was an indication of his understanding of the seriousness of his past mistakes. He denied downplaying past failures or glossing over the circumstances but thought it natural not to criticise himself. He thought that he was giving a good impression of himself. He blamed his personality for seeking to mitigate away challenges and criticisms. The longer the hearing went on, the worse Mr Hazell made his position. While saying that he was deeply sorry for what had happened in the past, he gave the distinct impression that the real cause of regret was the hardship which had been caused to his business. He continued to view it as bad luck. He viewed obtaining a licence as a way of “clearing his name”. That was not a proper use of the licensing system.
At his last attempt to gain an O-Licence, Mr Hazell had the sense to nominate an independent TM whomww TC Rooney described as credible. However, Mr Hazell failed to persuade TC Rooney that the proposed TM would be able to exert sufficient control. In the case of the application before him, he did not even have that modicum of assurance.
It was proposed that Mr Hazell would be the sole Director, TM, and driver. Mr Hazell had failed to satisfy the TC that he met the requirements for good repute and for professional competence through a TM capable of exercising continuous and effective management. Mr Hazell’s apparent inability to acknowledge the past failings so that he might avoid them going forward confirmed for TC Turfitt that he should refuse this application.
