The Tribunal was ‘concerned by the decision of the OTC’ to revoke the O-Licence after multiple letters to multiple addresses
Although the revocation of the one-vehicle restricted O-Licence held by Gabriel Grigorouiu, trading as Indy Cabs of Sittingbourne, has been quashed by the Upper Tribunal on appeal, it has directed that he be sent another “proposal to revoke” letter.
The Tribunal said that the Traffic Area Case Summary stated that as part of a data cleansing exercise focused on PSV O-Licences which had passed their continuation date, Mr Grigorouiu was written to on a number of occasions with no response.
The Traffic Commissioner (TC) therefore took the decision to “propose to revoke the O-Licence” and following no response, it was revoked on 6 August 2019.
In directing that the matter be remitted for a further “propose to revoke” letter to be sent to Mr Grigorouiu, the Tribunal said that on 12 January 2015, an O-Licence continuation letter was sent to a Gillingham address requesting that an O-Licence checklist be returned by 31 January 2015.
The checklist held recorded that Mr Grigorouiu’s operating centre was situated in Chatham; no response was received.
On 2 March 2015, a follow up letter was sent to the Gillingham address, no response was received.
On 24 May 2018, some three years later, a further letter was sent, this time to a second address in Chatham.
The letter incorrectly referred to a reminder letter having been sent on 2 March 2018 and enquired whether he wished to continue to operate under his O-Licence. No response was received.
Further reminder letters were sent in May and June 2018. On 2 May 2019, a “proposal to revoke” letter was sent to the operating centre address. No response was received and by a letter dated 14 August 2019 and sent to the second Chatham address, the O-Licence was revoked.
Mr Grigorouiu’s grounds of appeal were that he had not received any of the correspondence save for the letter dated 14 August 2019 and had he done so, he would have responded to it as he had held his O-Licence for nearly 10 years and he did not want to lose it.
In the ordinary course of events, the Tribunal would not have had any hesitation in dismissing this appeal as Mr Grigorouiu had failed to respond to repeated requests for information for a period of approximately four years.
However, it was concerned by the decision of the OTC to send the crucial “propose to revoke” letter to the operating centre.
It could not be satisfied that that address was sufficient in the circumstances to ensure that delivery to Mr Grigorouiu was achieved.
In the circumstances, and despite the very unimpressive history, it felt impelled to allow the appeal and require a further “proposal to revoke” letter be sent to the second Chatham address as it was at that address that Mr Grigorouiu received the letter of revocation.
If it was deemed appropriate, the fresh letter should be sent to other addresses on file for Mr Grigorouiu to avoid any further assertion that it had not been received by him.
