The Upper Tribunal has directed that the disqualification of Michael James, sole Director of North Warwickshire Travel, from holding a PCV O-Licence indefinitely and the revocation of the firm’s licence by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Nick Denton after it had terminated three local services without permission, and his disqualification from acting as Transport Manager (TM) for three years, be reconsidered by a different TC.
Mr James had a long history in the bus industry, being a Director of Acorn Bus and Coach, Vals Bus and Coach and of Tamworth Coach and Bus – all of whose licences had been revoked.
North Warwickshire Travel, trading as Peoples Movers, of Tamworth, with a six-vehicle international licence, had been called to a Birmingham Public Inquiry (PI).
At the outset Mr James was not present. Following a phone call, it was understood that Mr James was stuck in traffic and would arrive in 15 minutes. The hearing was adjourned for that period. At the resumption, Mr James was still not present but arrived after the TC had made his decision. In refusing to re-open the concluded PI, he noted that traffic conditions in Birmingham were not unusual that morning and there was nothing that would have prevented Mr James from arriving at a timely hour [routeone/Court Report/8 November 2017].
In its decision, the Tribunal said that it had considerable sympathy with the TC. No adequate evidence of financial standing had been provided. Against the background of the adverse compliance history, the TC was entitled to be skeptical about the prospects of Mr James being able to give satisfactory explanations for the company’s shortcomings, and in particular financial standing.
However, the TC said he was “extremely irritated” by the failure of Mr James to attend the hearing in good time or to alert the OTC that he was likely to arrive after 1000hrs prior to 1005hrs and his irritation undoubtedly influenced his approach to the issue.
To abide strictly to the 15 minutes indicated by Mr James was not a proportionate approach. Mr James himself might have miscalculated how long the final part of his journey was going to take; the ease with which he would find a parking space and the length of time it was going to take him to walk to the PI building. He might have had a plausible explanation for why he had not been able to attend in good time. Further, the TC should, at the very least, have heard from Mr James once he had attended the building to consider his request for the PI to be re-opened although best practice would be to simply immediately start again.
It was with reluctance that that they allowed this appeal because the firm had failed to produce any reliable evidence of financial standing and thus any reliable evidence that it was able to maintain its vehicles. It was noteworthy that no such evidence had been produced in support of the three applications for a stay of the TC’s decision and that caused the Tribunal considerable concern.
