The refusal of Peter Wright’s and Bradley Fold Travel’s bid for a new PSV O-Licence has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal, on the grounds that the company and Mr Wright had failed to show they had regained their repute by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Simon Evans.
The Manchester-based firm, of which the sole Director and proposed Transport Manager (TM) was Peter Wright, had sought a new two-vehicle national licence [routeone/Court Report/23 August].
In 2009 a licence held by the company was revoked, with it being held that the company and Mr Wright had lost their repute. Both were disqualified from holding a PSV O-Licence for 18 months and those decisions were upheld on appeal. The refusal of claims by both the company and Mr Wright for the return of two impounded vehicles was also upheld on appeal.
In refusing the application, the TC said that Mr Wright continued to maintain in most respects that the circumstances that led to Bradley Fold’s and his own loss of repute were down to external factors not of his making.
Adverse findings detracting from the repute of both Mr Wright and Bradley Fold were in the impounding proceedings when vehicles were found to be operated by him and the company unlawfully. There was evidence of a continuing readiness to allow his perception of the need for justice to distract his judgement and decision making, for example, in the stunt in bringing the box marked “unexploded bomb” to the hearing.
It was no less likely now that he would seek to challenge the regulatory process, to interpret the law differently to suit his beliefs and to fail to place the interests of road safety before a desire to challenge what he regarded as unfair [routeone/News/30 August 2017].
Before the Tribunal, Mr Wright said that he had always told the truth and had never attempted to deceive anyone. He had an unblemished career of 30 years in transport management.
In the previous 105 hearings he had sought to bring to the attention of the Contentious Crown issues. He was defending his birth rights as guaranteed by Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights Act. The TC’s description of the box marked “unexploded bomb” as a stunt was uncalled for.
After the Tribunal pointed out that the hearing was shortly after the Manchester Arena bombing when the staff in a public building would be particularly sensitive, Mr Wright responded: “Where is the English sense of humour in this state of adversity?”.
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that Mr Wright’s reliance upon the Bill of Rights and his reference to “forfeited rights” were of no relevance to the appeal.
The TC’s decision was not that Mr Wright and the company had lost their good repute, but rather they had failed to establish that it had been regained. Mr Wright was under the impression that the 1981 Act bestowed upon him various rights, for example to operate certain types of vehicle. That interpretation was misconceived. There was no right bestowed by the 1981 Act until a licence had been granted.
It was only then that the licence holder had some rights with regard to the way in which the licence was regulated. The letter he wrote on 7 January 2017 demonstrated his continued hostility towards those who regulated the transport industry. The PS at the end spoke volumes: “There is certain to be chicanery soon, for some of the lunatics still think they are running the asylum.”
All of Mr Wrights’ points were without merit. This was a case where neither the law nor the facts impelled them to interfere with the TC’s decision.
