Though quashing the revocation of the 12-vehicle licence held by Northolt-based Atbus, the Upper Tribunal has directed that the matter be reconsidered at a Public Inquiry (PI).
The licence held by the company was revoked without a PI in June 2018 after it had failed to appoint a new Transport Manager (TM) before a period of grace had expired.
In November 2017 the company’s TM’s son, who was living in Norway, had a serious and tragic accident. His injuries were such that the TM decided to end his employment with Atbus and go out to provide his support for his son’s family in Norway.
Following the initial letter informing the company of the revocation of its licence, an email was sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC). In that email the TC was invited to consider rescinding the revocation upon receipt of notification of the appointment of a TM.
It was said that Atbus would be appointing a Mr S Hughes as TM shortly. Relevant documentation concerning Mr Hughes and his qualifications and suitability was subsequently sent.
In the letter confirming the revocation decision it was said that Mr Hughes’s good repute remained in question “as a result of his work for BETC Ltd” – a company of which Richard Hill, Atbus’ director, was also a director.
For the company, Tim Nesbitt QC argued before the Tribunal that Atbus was not given any or sufficient notice that revocation of the licence was being considered prior to a decision to revoke being taken.
Atbus was not given sufficient opportunity to rectify the absence of a TM before that decision was taken. No or insufficient regard was had to the difficulty with the TM which had arisen because of a serious accident; that Mr Hill had been in hospital during the relevant period; and that Atbus had given an indication that it was to make a suitable appointment. It was wrong and an error of law not to provide Atbus with an opportunity to have its case considered at a PI.
The Tribunal said that there was no duty to always hold a PI in revocation cases without a request for one. However, the principles of natural justice would sometimes dictate that one should be held. This was clearly such a case.
Mr Hill had operated his business for some time. There had been no clear evidence of concerns likely to justify revocation other than the TM issue. The steps that the company had taken to appoint a new TM could not be regarded as free from potential criticism but some steps, at least, had been taken.
Revocation was undoubtedly a serious step to take. They had therefore concluded that in this case the circumstances and matters of fairness dictated that a PI ought to have been held.
