Upper Tribunal Dismisses Standard Licence Appeal Due to Statutory Failures
📌 In brief
The Upper Tribunal dismissed an appeal because the applicant failed to meet the statutory requirements for obtaining a standard national operator's licence. The applicant did not provide necessary documentation and lacked a certificate of professional competence.
⚖️ Legal holding
An applicant must satisfy all statutory requirements to obtain a standard national operator's licence.
📖 Technical summary
The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to meet statutory requirements for a standard operator's licence.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Upper Tribunal dismissed an appeal from the Traffic Commissioner's refusal of a standard national operator's licence due to the applicant's failure to meet statutory requirements, including providing a certificate of professional competence and necessary documentation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
1
UKUT 103 (AAC) Appeal No. UA-2024-001332-T
IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER APPEALS
ON APPEAL from the DECISION of the TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER for the EAST OF ENGLAND dated 20th September 2024
Before:
HHJ Beech, Judge of the Upper Tribunal [NAME], Specialist Member of the Tribunal [NAME], Specialist Member of the Tribunal
Appellant: [redacted]
[COMPANY] Commissioner’s ref: 0F2075434
Hearing date: 11th March 2025 Mode of hearing: Attended Heard at:
[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
Representation: Appellant: [redacted] 25th March 2025
SUMMARY OF DECISION
This appeal is DISMISSED.
The Traffic Commissioner’s decision to refuse the Appellant’s application for a standard national operator’s licence involved neither error of law or mistake of fact as per the test in [NAME] & [NAME] v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695..
KEYWORD NAME: 100.1 Applications
Please note the Summary of Decision is included for the convenience of readers. It does not form part of the decision. The Decision and Reasons of the judge follow.
[COMPANY] no. UA-2024-001332-T
UKUT 103 (AAC
2
DECISION
The appeal is dismissed
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England (“[NAME]”) dated 20th September 2024, when he dismissed the Appellant’s application for a standard national operator’s licence under s.13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”).
Factual background
2. The background to this appeal is as follows. On 12th July 2024, the Appellant (“[NAME]”) applied for a standard national licence authorising two vehicles and two trailers at an operating centre at J A Wyard Depot, [ADDRESS], Ipswich. The nominated transport manager was [APPELLANT] who was also the sole director of the company. The accompanying transport manager form nominating Mr [APPELLANT] was not accompanied with the original copy of Mr [APPELLANT]’s certificate of professional competence (“CPC”) but rather a traffic management qualification by [NAME].
3. On 18th July 2024, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”), wrote to [NAME] to notify the company that its application was incomplete for the following reasons: • There was no advert submitted in support of the application. • The nominated transport manager’s original certificate/s of professional competence in road haulage was required. • A written explanation, with supporting evidence, about how the company had been meeting its transport needs since its incorporation on 16th September 2021, including the weight of vehicles used or details of any third party used to provide transport. [NAME] was given until 1st August 2024 to respond to the letter and was warned that failure to provide all of the information requested may result in the application being refused. In response to the letter, [NAME] submitted a compliant advertisement.
4. On the 13th August 2024, the OTC wrote to [NAME] again. The letter was intended as a final attempt to resolve the issues raised by no later than 27th August 2024. [NAME] was warned that if by that date, the application
[COMPANY] no. UA-2024-001332-T
UKUT 103 (AAC
3 remained incomplete, the application would be refused. The following outstanding documentation was required: • Mr [APPELLANT]’s original CPC. • A written explanation with supporting evidence, about how the company had been meeting its transport needs since its incorporation on 16th September 2021, including the weight of vehicles used or details of any third party used to provide transport. • An aerial image of the proposed operating centre showing the location of the site in relation to the surrounding area and parking spaces for the requested authority. It had not been possible to determine the location of the site from internet searches and the traffic commissioner needed to be satisfied that the site was suitable for use. It appears that in response, [NAME] resubmitted the compliant advertisement.
5. By a letter dated 20th September 2024, the company’s application was refused under s.13(5) of the Act for the following reasons: • In the absence of a CPC in the name of Mr [APPELLANT], the [NAME] could not be satisfied that the company had nominated a suitable transport manager meeting the requirements of paragraph 14A(1) and (2) or 14A(1) and (3) of Schedule 3 of the Act as set out in s.13A(3) of the Act. • No written explanation had been received of how the company had been meeting its transport needs since its incorporation. • No aerial image of the proposed operating centre had been provided and it was therefore impossible for the [NAME] to be satisfied that the proposed operating centre was available to the company as required under s13(C)(5) of the Act or that the proposed operating centre had enough space as required under s.13C(6) of the 1995 Act.
Legal framework
6. By s.13(5) of the 1995 Act, a Traffic Commissioner must refuse an application for a standard operator’s licence if the applicant has failed to satisfy any of the requirements of sections 13A and 13C of the Act and in particular, the requirement of being professionally competent (s.13A(3)) and the requirement that the proposed operating centre is available and suitable for use as an operating centre (s.13C(5) and that it has sufficient capacity to provide an operating centre for all the vehicles under the licence (s.13C(6).
The grounds of appeal and the parties’ submissions
7. The main thrust of [NAME]’s appeal was that the application for a licence had been made by a member of the office staff who was unaware of the statutory
[COMPANY] no. UA-2024-001332-T
UKUT 103 (AAC
4 requirements to be met in order to be granted a licence. When filing the Appeal Notice, the same member of staff had attached to it, the aerial photograph which had been requested by the OTC without any explanation as to why it had not been provided to the OTC when requested and a further copy of Mr [APPELLANT]’s [NAME] qualification. Mr [APPELLANT] accepted that he (and the member of staff) were unaware of the legal requirements and of the existence of certificates of professional competence. He did not possess one. He accepted that in the circumstances, the application before the [NAME] was bound to fail.
Analysis
8. It was explained to Mr [APPELLANT] that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is one of review rather than rehearing and that in the circumstances, the appeal was bound to fail. It became clear during Mr [APPELLANT]’s representations that in fact, the company only used its vehicles to carry its own goods. He was unaware that in the alternative to a standard licence, a restricted operator’s licence could be applied for in those circumstances.
Conclusion
9. Taking all the circumstances into account, we are not satisfied that there was any procedural unfairness in this case or that the [NAME]’s decision was plainly wrong in any respect and neither the facts nor the law applicable should impel the Tribunal to allow this appeal as per the test in [NAME] & [NAME] v Secretary of State for Transport (2010) EWCA Civ.695. The appeal is dismissed.
Her Honour Judge Beech
Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Authorised by the Judge for issue on 25th March 2025
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Traffic Commissioner correctly applied the statutory requirements for obtaining a standard national operator's licence.
- The Tribunal confirmed the Traffic Commissioner's decision based on the lack of necessary documentation and compliance with legal standards.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The appellant argued that the application was made by an unaware staff member, which did not affect the decision's validity.
- The appellant did not provide the required CPC certificate for the nominated transport manager.
- The appellant failed to submit a written explanation of how the company had been meeting its transport needs since incorporation.
- The appellant did not provide an aerial image of the proposed operating centre, making it impossible to confirm its suitability.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to meet statutory requirements for a standard national operator's licence.
Who was involved?
The applicant, a transport company, and the Traffic Commissioner were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the applicant's failure to provide necessary documentation and a certificate of professional competence was sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 was applied, specifically sections 13(5), 13A(3), 13C(5), and 13C(6).
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the applicant's failure to meet the statutory requirements for a standard national operator's licence.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they meet all statutory requirements before applying for a standard national operator's licence.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the lack of a certificate of professional competence and the failure to provide necessary documentation.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions like this can be appealed to a higher court, but the grounds for appeal must be carefully considered.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving complex statutory requirements.