The refusal of a bid for a new three-vehicle O-Licence by former Carmel Coaches Director Anthony Hazell by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Kevin Rooney has been upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal.
Mr Hazell had sought an O-Licence based at the premises of Carmel Coaches, Station Road, Northlew, Okehampton. The company’s international O-Licence for 40 vehicles was revoked owing to severe maintenance shortcomings. Anthony Hazell was disqualified for 18 months from acting as a Director and Transport Manager (TM). An appeal against those decisions was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal.
Carmel Coaches was granted an international O-Licence for 15 vehicles in December 2016 after the TC 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 O-Licence by the company, one of whose Directors and the TM was Mr Hazell, was refused by the TC.
In refusing the application, the TC said that Mr Hazell had been reluctant to embrace change and had not demonstrated that he was a changed person, referring to previous good history when the reality was far from that. He had continued to act and speak as though there had never been anything wrong in his operations despite the written decisions of four TCs and two Upper Tribunal judges. That inability to see his own weaknesses was further evident when Mr Hazell told him that his vehicles had enjoyed eight straight MoT passes last year. Review of the public record showed that not to be true. Mr Hazell had failed to demonstrate that he had changed his ways. Mr Rooney could not see how the proposed part-time TM could exert the control that was necessary.
Mr Hazell appealed on the grounds that the TC placed undue weight on the regulatory history and had placed insufficient weight on the steps taken by him to rehabilitate himself, so that the decision to refuse the application was plainly wrong.
Dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal said that Mr Hazell’s assertion that his vehicles had achieved eight straight MoT passes in 2021 demonstrated that Mr Hazell was prepared to make a statement to the TC which was factually incorrect. He clearly had not made the appropriate enquiries before making the statement, which was surprising bearing in mind the findings of two TCs which cast doubt upon his openness and truthfulness. His failing demonstrated a cavalier approach towards the application process, the TC and to regulatory compliance.
Mr Hazell had a significant and serious adverse regulatory compliance history. He did not accept his past failings and he did not impress the TC as someone who now wished to embrace change. The Upper Tribunal could not identify any evidence before the TC which might have led him to conclude that Mr Hazell had regained his good repute and ought to be trusted with an O-Licence. In all the circumstances, it was not satisfied that the TC’s decision was plainly wrong in any respect, and neither the facts nor the law applicable in this case should impel the Tribunal to allow the appeal.
